Sunkara Venkata Trinadh Kumar, v. Sanapala Venkata Satyanarayana,

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.263 of 2017 Date:27.01.2017 Between:

Sunkara Venkata Trinadh Kumar, S/o Late Venkata Rao ..... Petitioner And:

Sanapala Venkata Satyanarayana, S/o Sanyasayya .....Respondent Counsel for the petitioner: Ms. J.Sunitha For Mr. K.B.Ramanna Dora The Court made the following:

CVNR, J CRP.No.263 of 2017 Dated:27.01.2017 ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order, dated 01.12.2016, in I.A.No.14 of 2015 in O.S.No.413 of 2013 on the file of the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, whereby he has allowed the said I.A. filed by the petitioner subject to his depositing of 50% of the decretal amount on or before 20.01.2017.

I have heard Ms. J.Sunitha, learned counsel representing Mr. K.B.Ramanna Dora, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

The respondent filed the afore-mentioned suit for recovery of Rs.3 lakhs along with interest at 24% per annum from the petitioner. The petitioner, who allegedly received summons in the suit, remained ex parte. Therefore, the lower Court has passed ex parte decree on 29.10.2013. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed an application under Order-IX Rule-13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex parte decree. He has also filed I.A.No.14 of 2015 for condonation of delay of 355 days in filing the said application. The lower Court observed that though the petitioner was served with personal notice in the suit, he did not contest the same and allowed the ex parte decree to be passed. It has, accordingly, rejected the plea of the petitioner that he was not aware of filing of the suit.

CVNR, J CRP.No.263 of 2017 Dated:27.01.2017 However, taking a lenient view, the lower Court has set aside the ex parte decree subject to the afore-mentioned condition. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the lower Court has not committed any jurisdictional error in imposing the afore-mentioned condition. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, time for deposit of the amount by the petitioner as per the direction of the lower Court is extended by four weeks from today. As a sequel to dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition, CRPMP.No.339 of 2017 filed by the petitioner for interim relief stands dismissed as infructuous.

____________________________ JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY 27th January, 2017 DR