Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1054 (AP)

K. Ramesh Babu v. Bank of India, Chittoor

2003-08-19

B.PRAKASH RAO

body2003
( 1 ) HEARD both sides. ( 2 ) THE petitioner, who is the defendant, seeks to assail the order passedby the learned i Additional District Judge, Chittoor in c. M. A. No. 44 of 2000 dated 4-6-2001 confirming the order passed by the learned II additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor in i. A. No. 306 of 1999 in O. S. No. 976 of 1998 dated 1-5-2000. ( 3 ) THE respondent herein filed the suit against the petitioner for recovery of money. The said suit was posted for filing written statement on 12-2-1999 and the petitioner could not file written statement on that day and as such the matter was posted for plaintiff s evidence on 5-3-1999 and an ex parte decree was passed on 9-7-1999. At that stage, the petitioner filed I. A. No. 306 of 1999 under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil procedure seeking to set aside the ex parte decree passed on 9-7-1999 and receive the written statement and permit him to contest the suit on merits. The trial Court on a consideration of the entire material available on record dismissed the said application holding that there are no sufficient grounds to set aside the ex parte decree. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred c. M. A. No. 44 of 2000 before the I Additional district Judge, Chittoor and the same was dismissed by order dated 4-6-2001. It is against this order, the prestnt revision is filed. ( 4 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and on perusal of the record, I am satisfied that the Courts below have acted in a hyper technical manner in rejecting the application for setting aside the ex parte decree. It is well settled that the expression sufficient cause occurring in order 9 Rule 13 C. P. C. should be construed liberally go as to advance the cause of substantial justice but not to punish the parties for their mistakes. ( 5 ) IN the aforementioned circumstances, I feel that the ends of justice require that the petitioner should be given an opportunity to contest the suit on merits by setting aside the ex parte decree on certain terms. Accordingly i. A. No. 306 of 1999 is allowed subject to the condition of the petitioner-defendant paying an amount of Rs. ( 5 ) IN the aforementioned circumstances, I feel that the ends of justice require that the petitioner should be given an opportunity to contest the suit on merits by setting aside the ex parte decree on certain terms. Accordingly i. A. No. 306 of 1999 is allowed subject to the condition of the petitioner-defendant paying an amount of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) towards costs to the counsel of the respondent-plaintiff within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ( 6 ) THE Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed. No costs.