JUDGMENT 1. The Civil Revision Petition has been filed aggrieved by the Order dtd. 22/3/2022 passed in I.A.No.206 of 2022 in O.S.No.39 of 2006 on the file of the VII Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru, whereby petition filed by the petitioner/ 1st defendant under Order IX Rule 7 CPC to set aside ex parte order dtd. 13/12/2006 passed against him, was dismissed. 2. The petitioner herein is defendant No.1, 1st respondent herein is plaintiff, and respondents 2 to 5 herein are defendants 2 to 5, in the Original Suit. For sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to, as per their array in the Original Suit. 3. Plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit for specific performance directing the defendants to execute sale deed(s) in favour of the plaintiff on ascertaining the correct extent of land by measurement as per FMB, receive the balance of sale consideration before the Joint Registrar and register the sale deeds, in respect of Ac.12.92 cents in R.S.No.198 and 169/2 of Pangidigudem village, Dwaraka Tirumala Mandal as well as Polasanipalli village, Bhimadole mandal, West Godavari district. The defendant No.1 was set ex parte on 13/12/2006. It is stated in the petition that 2nd defendant is younger brother of 1st defendant and 3rd defendant is wife of 2nd defendant. 2nd defendant was cultivating and used to look after the disputes if any with regard to lands. Some financial disputes arose between the brothers and as such 1st defendant enquired 2nd defendant about status of the present case. He gave evasive replies and as such 1st defendant entertained doubt. On that, he approached the counsel in Eluru, obtained photo copies of case documents and came to know that he was set ex parte on 7/6/2010. The counsel advised to file set aside petition and written statement. It is submitted by petitioner/1st defendant that his brother 2nd defendant colluded with plaintiff and deceived him. The alleged 'sale agreement' and also 'consent agreement/written understanding' were fabricated documents. No transaction took place at any point of time between plaintiff and himself. As 2nd defendant was telling him many times that he was taking care of the case and as such he did not try in person to know the details of the case in good faith on his brother. As his brother did not inform him about the ex parte order, he could not file the petition. As 2nd defendant was telling him many times that he was taking care of the case and as such he did not try in person to know the details of the case in good faith on his brother. As his brother did not inform him about the ex parte order, he could not file the petition. The alleged agreement of sale dtd. 8/5/2004 is a fabricated document and he never sold his individual property to plaintiff and also written understanding document. Hence, the present petition. 4. Plaintiff filed counter affidavit denying the averments in the set aside petition and stating inter alia that all the three defendants entered into the suit agreement of sale in respect of their respective items and 1st defendant has thorough knowledge of the filing of the suit, its pendency and their contesting the suit. Along with other defendants, he filed Tr.CMP No.176 of 2019 before this Court seeking transfer of the said suit, which was dismissed on 28/12/2020. He is also a party to CRP No.1208 of 2021 filed before this Court against the Order in I.A.No.606 of 2013 passed in the suit and the said CRP was dismissed on 9/12/2021. Defendants 2 and 3 are behind the 1st defendant and there are no bona fides in filing the present petition. In the suit, evidence on plaintiff side is completed and it is coming up for evidence on defendants' side. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the petition. 5. Defendants 2 and 3 filed separate counters in the I.A. admitting financial disputes with 1st defendant and stating inter alia that it is the duty of 1st defendant to look after his own case instead of blaming others. The reason assigned by 1st defendant is not a valid reason and 1st defendant is put to strict proof of the allegations. 6. The trial Court dismissed the petition vide the impugned order. Challenging the same, the present CRP is preferred. 7. Learned counsel for petitioner/1st defendant contended that petitioner was depending on 2nd defendant for all his transactions in respect of landed properties, and he used to put his signatures whenever his brother asks him to sign. 6. The trial Court dismissed the petition vide the impugned order. Challenging the same, the present CRP is preferred. 7. Learned counsel for petitioner/1st defendant contended that petitioner was depending on 2nd defendant for all his transactions in respect of landed properties, and he used to put his signatures whenever his brother asks him to sign. He further submits that bona fidely, he believed 2nd defendant, but when 2nd defendant gave evasive replies in the second week of February, 2022 when he asked status of the present case, the petitioner enquired with his counsel and came to know that he was set ex parte. The learned counsel submits that on coming about the same, he approached his counsel and filed the present petition along with written statement. He submits that reasonable opportunity ought to have been given to the petitioner to contest the suit as substantial rights of the petitioner are involved in it and he is denying the very execution of the suit agreement of sale. He submits that the trial Court has not considered these aspects in proper perspective and erred in dismissing the petition. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for 1st respondent/ plaintiff contended that 1st defendant and other defendants are in hand-in-glove with each other and filed the present petition only to further drag on the proceedings; that the petitioner knew very well that he was set ex parte in the suit long back and inspite of the same, he did not choose to approach the Court by way of filing set aside ex parte petition within reasonable time. He further submits that the petitioner is a party to Tr.CMP No.176 of 2019 before this Court seeking transfer of the said suit, which was dismissed on 28/12/2020, and also to CRP No.1208 of 2021 filed before this Court against the Order in I.A.No.606 of 2013 passed in the suit, which was dismissed on 9/12/2021; that the present petition is filed by suppressing all the aforesaid facts and only to drag on the proceedings and the trial Court rightly dismissed the petition and hence, he prayed to dismiss the CRP. 9. Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is exercised for keeping the subordinate courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. 9. Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is exercised for keeping the subordinate courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. In exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of fact, of an inferior Court or Tribunal, if there was no evidence to justify such a conclusion and if no reasonable person could possibly have come to the conclusion, which the Court or Tribunal has come to, or, in other words, it is a finding which was perverse in law. When the subordinate Court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have or the jurisdiction though available is being exercised by the Court in a manner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby, the High Court may step in to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction. However, this Court is not justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the probabilities, reliability or genuineness of the allegations made therein. It cannot be used as an appellate or revisional power. In short, as regards the findings of fact of inferior Court, the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is limited only to the extent of examining whether the subordinate Court keeps itself within the bounds of its authority in reaching a finding of fact. 10. In the case on hand, the suit is filed by 1st respondent/ plaintiff for specific performance of agreement of sale. Petitioner herein is 1st defendant in the suit. He was set ex parte on 13/12/2006. A petition in I.A.No.206 of 2022 to set aside the ex parte order was filed. The reasons assigned by 1st defendant are that 2nd defendant, who is his younger brother, was looking after the disputes if any with regard to lands. Because of some financial disputes arose between them and as 2nd defendant was giving evasive replies with regard to status of the present suit, 1 st defendant approached the counsel in Eluru and came to know that he was set ex parte in the present suit. According to 1st defendant, he came to know about the same in second week of February, 2022. According to 1st defendant, he came to know about the same in second week of February, 2022. It is his case that 2nd defendant colluded with the plaintiff and deceived him and the subject agreement of sale is a fabricated document and he has not executed it, and as his brother did not inform him about the ex parte order, he could not file the petition. 11. Whereas, plaintiff resisted the application stating that present petition is filed only to further drag on the suit proceedings. According to the plaintiff, 1st defendant is well aware of the ex parte order passed against him and he is a party to Tr.CMP No.176 of 2019, which was dismissed on 28/12/2020, and also to CRP No.1208 of 2021 filed before this Court which was dismissed on 9/12/2021, and that the brothers colluded together and filed the present application. 12. Under Order IX Rule 7 CPC, if the defendant fails to appear on the day fixed for hearing, the Court may proceed with the case and pass judgment based on the evidence presented by the plaintiff. The objective behind the said provision is to prevent unnecessary delays in the judicial process. 13. In R.N. Jadi and brothers v. Subhashchandra, 2007 (4) JLJR 98 (SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the said provision stipulating to file written statement within a period of 90 days does not specifically take away the power of the Court to take the written statement on record though filed beyond the time as provided for and further held that the nature of the provision contained in Order VIII Rule 1 CPC is procedural one and it is not mandatory rather the same has been substituted with the intention to curb the mischief of unscrupulous defendants adopting dilatory tactics, delaying the disposal of the cases. 14. In Shoraj Singh v. Charan Singh case (Civil Appeal No.6304 of 2021), while referring to the judgment in Kailash v. Nanhku and others (2005) 4 SCC 480 and in Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamilnadu v. Union of India (2005) 6 SCC 344 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the period of 90 days for filing the written statement is directory as far as regular suits are concerned and it is mandatory for commercial suits. 15. In a decision of Madras High Court in Subburayulu Naidu v. B.Krishnamurthy Naidu (died) case dtd. 15. In a decision of Madras High Court in Subburayulu Naidu v. B.Krishnamurthy Naidu (died) case dtd. 3/3/2021 (C.R.P.No.867 of 2017) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner/1st defendant, it is held thus: (paragraph 7) "The above decisions are squarely applicable to the case on hand. If the above decisions are taken into account, it is clear that Article 137 of the Limitation Act does not apply to an application filed under Order 9 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code and there is no limitation for an application under Order 9 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code." 16. In the case on hand, the suit is filed for specific performance. It is coming for evidence on defendants' side. 1st defendant filed the petition to set aside ex parte order, by enclosing written statement. Substantial rights of 1st defendant are involved in the suit. He is denying the execution of the suit agreement of sale and alleging that 2nd defendant colluded with the plaintiff and deceived him and the subject agreement of sale is a fabricated document and he has not executed it, and as his brother did not inform him about the ex parte order, he could not file the petition. Though the reasons assigned by 1st defendant for the delay in filing the set aside ex parte order petition are not satisfactory, in view of the fact that substantial rights of 1 st defendant are involved in the suit and the suit is coming up for evidence on defendants' side, this Court feels that ends of justice would be met if an opportunity is given to 1st defendant to contest the suit, however, with some conditions/directions. 17. Accordingly, the impugned Order dtd. 22/3/2022 passed in I.A.No.206 of 2022 in O.S.No.39 of 2006 on the file of the VII Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru is set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.206 of 2022 stands allowed, setting aside the ex parte order, on condition of petitioner/1st defendant paying Rs.2, 500.00 to the High Court Legal Services Committee, Amaravati. The defendants shall co-operate with trial Court in disposal of the suit without seeking any adjournments. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. 18. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The defendants shall co-operate with trial Court in disposal of the suit without seeking any adjournments. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. 18. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs of the C.R.P. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in the C.R.P. shall stand closed.