Order : The instant Civil Revision Petition has been preferred against an order dated 09.05.2022 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Piler, in I.A.No.669 of 2012 in O.S.No.42 of 2002. 2. The learned Court below has dismissed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed in support of an application under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC to condone the delay of 768 days. 3. The brief facts of the matter are that a suit was filed by the present respondent Nos.1 and 2 for recovery of damages for malicious prosecution against the present petitioner and others. Suit was dismissed as time-barred against the official respondents but decreed ex-parte against the present petitioner. The petitioner filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside ex-parte decree along with an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 768 days. Learned trial Court has heard the parties, perused the evidence led by the petitioner and could not satisfied with the explanation given by the petitioner, thereby application under Section 5 of Limitation Act was dismissed without costs. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition. 4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in Section 5 of Limitation Act application that the summons in the suit was never served upon him as he was away from the village and the address shown in cause title of the suit. It is further contended that he was working as a lecturer at Kakinada and not aware of all the proceedings. He first of all came to know about the suit from his friend thereafter verifying the records from the Court, he filed a suit for cancellation of decree. But the same suit was rejected on the finding that he had a remedy to file an application under order IX Rule 13 of CPC. The said order was also not informed by his learned counsel within time. On 25.08.2012, when he came to Piler to visit his village and tried to met the Advocate, the advocate was away from the town and, through telephone, informed him that plaint was rejected. Due to the cause, the application under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC was filed in a delay of 768 days. In justifying his application, the petitioner himself deposed as P.W.1 and one his friend deposed as P.W.2. Due to the cause, the application under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC was filed in a delay of 768 days. In justifying his application, the petitioner himself deposed as P.W.1 and one his friend deposed as P.W.2. Some documents were marked as Exs.A1 to A5. Ex.A1 is Master Degree issued by Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University in favour of the petitioner, Ex.A2 is experience certificate issued by Progressive Engineering College from 01.11.2005 to 30.11.2005, Ex.A3 is original degree given in favour of the petitioner, Ex.A4 is the original appointment letter dated 06.11.2006 and Ex.A5 is the service certificate issued by Jawaharlal Nehru University, Kakinada, stating that the petitioner worked there from 01.12.2006 to 25.12.2012. In deciding the application, the learned Court below is of the opinion that though the petitioner filed those exhibits that he was working at Kakinada at the date of serving of summons, the documents i.e., Exs.A1 to A5 were not proved through the maker of the document and therefore he did not placed reliance upon those documents. 5. Learned Court below is also opined that the petitioner did not file any copy of plaint for cancellation of decree and the order passed by the concerned Court in rejecting the said suit. Thus, it appears to the learned Court below that the petitioner has intentionally suppressed the documents regarding earlier proceedings. On the basis of such observations, it appeared to the learned Court below that the ground as stated in the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act were not reasonable for condoning the delay. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has explained regarding the delay for filing the application under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC. He further submits that Exs.A1 to A5 were the documents issued by the concerned authorities while the petitioner was working at the time when the said suit was filed and summons were served. He further submits that the determination under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC as well as the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act by the Court below is interlocutory in nature and at that stage it is not required, for the purpose, to give strict proof upon the documents. He further submits that the determination under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC as well as the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act by the Court below is interlocutory in nature and at that stage it is not required, for the purpose, to give strict proof upon the documents. He further submits that though the petitioner has not placed the earlier plaint and the order of rejection of plaint passed by the concerned Court, he has successfully stated in this affidavit regarding the date of the rejection of plaint dated 15.02.2012. He further submits that the evidence of R.W.1 before the learned Court below is very much clear that plaintiff to the suit had no knowledge regarding working place of the petitioner. He further submits that the learned Court below has committed error by rejecting the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, that there are merits in the suit, and that there is every chance of the petitioner to succeed in the suit. The suit against the petitioner is also required to be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Thus, the petitioner may be allowed to contest the suit and prayed to set aside the order passed by the learned Court below. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the learned Court below has categorically recorded its finding in the impugned order regarding reasons for dismissal of the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act. It is a speaking order, wherein it has given its reasons for dismissing the application. He further submits that the petitioner had the knowledge of the suit in the year 2011 itself, but he has not filed any application under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC. He further submits that on plaint perusal of P.W.2, it would be revealed that the petitioner was informed regarding the decree of the suit in the year 2011. Since then, the petitioner sit tight over the matter and only filed application for setting aside the ex-parte with delay of 768 days. He further submits that learned Court below has committed no error. In absence of plaint and order for rejection of plaint, in the earlier suit, the learned Court below had no option to satisfy itself regarding the sufficiency of the cause shown by the petitioner. He further submits that learned Court below has committed no error. In absence of plaint and order for rejection of plaint, in the earlier suit, the learned Court below had no option to satisfy itself regarding the sufficiency of the cause shown by the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner had entire knowledge about the suit in question and he willfully did not attend in the suit in spite of knowledge of the suit. Thus, the petitioner’s application under Section 5 of Limitation Act cannot be allowed. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in SUNIL PODDAR AND OTHERS Vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA , (2008) 2 SCC 326 , wherein it is held as follows:- “23. It is, therefore, clear that the legal position under the amended Code is not whether the defendant was actually served with the summons in accordance with the procedure laid down and in the manner prescribed in Order 5 of the Code, but whether (i) he had notice of the date of hearing of the suit; and (ii) whether he had sufficient time to appear and answer the claim of the plaintiff. Once these two conditions are satisfied, an ex parte decree cannot be set aside even if it is established that there was irregularity in service of summons. If the Court is convicted that the defendant had otherwise knowledge of the proceedings and he could have appeared and answered the plaintiff’s claim, he cannot put forward a ground of non- service of summons for setting aside ex parte decree passed against him by invoking Rule 13 of Order 9 of the Code. Since the said provision applies to the Debts Recovery Tribunals and the Appellate Tribunals under the Act in view of Section 22(2)(g) of the Act, both the Tribunals were right in observing that the ground raised by the appellants could not be upheld. It is not even contended by the appellants that though they had knowledge of the proceedings before DRT, they had no sufficient time to appear and answer the claim of the plaintiff Bank and on that ground, ex parte order deserves to be set aside.” 8. Heard learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the impugned order passed by the learned Court below. 9. Heard learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the impugned order passed by the learned Court below. 9. In dealing with the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act, the learned Court below has examined the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 as well as R.W.1 during the hearing of the application, some documents, i.e., Exs.A1 to A5, were placed on record. The reasoning for dismissal of the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act, as stated by the learned Court below in the impugned order, are firstly the documents i.e., Exs.A2 and A5, were not properly proved by the petitioner. Secondly, there was no explanation as to why the petitioner did not file application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC just after getting knowledge in the year 2011, thirdly the petitioner had not filed any plaint for cancellation of the decree and order passed thereon. 10. In deciding the first point, it reveals that by a specific memo, the petitioner has placed on record Exs.A1 to A5. On plaint perusal of the Exs.A1 to A5, it appears that those documents were issued by the concerned authority relating to the petitioner’s Master’s degree certificate, original degree, appointment letter and service certificate. The respondent has not raised any particular challenge regarding the legality and veracity of those documents. Learned Court below is of opinion that though the documents has been marked but not proved by the issuing authority. Admittedly, decision and determination of an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC as well as Section 5 of Limitation Act is the determination of a Civil Judge in interlocutory stage. In that stage, the petitioner has only to show sufficient reasons which prevented him to came to the Court. The leaned Court below has opined that the documents Exs.A1 to A5 were not properly proved, however, the opinion of the learned Court below on that point is not correct. The Civil Court cannot require strict proof of some documents which were placed in interlocutory stage and are not challenged by adverse party. They can be relied through affidavit of the parties. Deciding the first point, it appears that the learned Court below has committed error by not placing reliance upon the documents filed by the petitioner. 11. The Civil Court cannot require strict proof of some documents which were placed in interlocutory stage and are not challenged by adverse party. They can be relied through affidavit of the parties. Deciding the first point, it appears that the learned Court below has committed error by not placing reliance upon the documents filed by the petitioner. 11. In deciding the second point, it appears that the learned Court below was doubtful regarding the conduct of the petitioner since 2011, while the petitioner stated that he came to know from his friend that suit was decreed against him. An affidavit was placed on record in support of Section 5 of Limitation Act before the learned Court below. In the affidavit itself, the petitioner has stated that the suit for cancellation of the decree was dismissed on 15.02.2012. Though no documents were placed before the learned Court below but petitioner had placed those documents before this Court i.e., copy of plaint and order, which clearly shows that a suit was filed for cancelling of ex-parte decree. It appears that concerned Civil Judge, Piler, in deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC, has rejected the plaint with a view that petitioner has the option to challenge the ex-parte decree under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC. From the plaint perusal of the order itself it appears to me that though the plaintiff had knowledge about the ex-parte decree in the year 2011, he promptly approached the Civil Court for cancelling of such ex- parte decree. However, it appears to me that the present petitioner should have placed those documents before the learned Court below. If those documents were placed before learned court, order of the learned Court below may be otherwise. On that ground it appears to me that the observation of the learned Court below according to point Nos.2 and 3 appears to me not justified on the strength of the documents placed before me in respect of an order dated 15.02.2012 in C.F.No.3067 of 2011. 12. In relying upon the observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraph 23 of Sunil Poddar (supra), it appears to me that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has framed a principle that a person having notice of date of hearing of the suit and if he had sufficient time to appear and answer the claim of the plaintiff are the two prime factors. In this particular case, though the petitioner had the knowledge since 2011 regarding ex-parte decree, he proceeded to challenge the ex-parte decree by filing a specific suit for cancellation of the decree. The time for proceeding in a separate proceeding can be excluded according to the provisions of Section 14 of Limitation Act. It is admitted that the plaintiff had proceeded to challenge the decree and time consumed to challenge such decree in a separate suit, though it was dismissed, cannot be reckoned for condoning the delay. However, according to the provisions of Order IX Rule 13 CPC, it appears that the petitioner, being the defendant, had to place sufficient reasons to condone the delay. Knowledge of the petitioner/defendant, according to him, is the year 2011. The petitioner had approached a Civil Court to challenge the decree, which was declined, thereafter he approached to Court. Considering entire aspect and considering the documentary evidence Exs.A1 to A5, it appears to me that the reasons stated and demonstrated by the present petitioner before the learned trial Court appears to me satisfactory. 13. The learned Court below has committed error in dismissing the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act, thereby the order passed by the learned trial Court below appears to me not proper and legal. Thus, the same is hereby set aside. The application under Section 5 of Limitation Act filed by the present petitioner is considered and allowed. The petitioner is permitted to proceed with the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC. The learned Court below shall dispose of the application after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties. 14. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.