ORDER : 1. Heard Sri. Mehboob Ali, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff and Sri. V.Atchuta Ram, learned counsel for the respondent/defendant. 2. Since both the Civil Revision Petitions are arising out of the same issue, they are analogously heard together and being disposed of by this common order. 3. Civil Revision Petition No.522 of 2025: This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff to set aside the order dated 31.12.2024 passed in I.A. No. 627 of 2024 in O.S. No. 4712 of 2022 by the learned IX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad (for short ‘the trial Court’). By the impugned order, the petition filed by the respondent/defendant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act , 1963, to condone the delay of 672 days in filing the petition for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 09.01.2023, was allowed by the trial Court. 4. Civil Revision Petition No.552 of 2025: This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff to set aside the order dated 31.12.2024 passed in I.A. No. 628 of 2024 in O.S. No. 4712 of 2022 by the learned IX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad (for short ‘the trial Court’). By the impugned order, the petition filed by the respondent/defendant under Order XXXVIII Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code , 1908, to set aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 09.01.2023, was allowed by the trial Court. 5. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant before the trial Court. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court. 6. The brief facts of the case are that initially, the plaintiff filed a summary suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.7,59,666/- from the defendant with interest at 12% per annum on basis of demand promissory note dated 07.09.202; cheque bearing No.000096 dated 15.06.2022, drawn on HDFC bank, Mallepally, Vijaynagar Colony Branch; cheque return memo dated 20.06.2022; legal notice dated 02.07.2022, postal receipts dated 02.07.2022; track report taken from the Indian Post Web site evidencing the service of legal notice and original postal acknowledgment card in proof of service of legal notice dated 02.07.2022. Lastly, the plaintiff produced his bank account to prove the payment of loan amount to the defendant. 7. Lastly, the plaintiff produced his bank account to prove the payment of loan amount to the defendant. 7. Summons were received on 16.11.2022 and appearance is made through counsel by name K. Venkataiah who filed vakalath on 21.11.2022 behalf of the defendant. Thereafter, judgment summons were served on the defendant on 20.12.2022. After service of judgment summons, the defendant ought to have filed petition seeking leave to defend within the stipulated time but there was failure to do so. Hence, the suit was decreed. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed E.P. No. 255 of 2023 for recovery of suit amount of Rs.8,94,840/-. When summons received in the E.P. No. 255 of 2023 on 17.10.2024, the defendant learned about the ex parte judgment and decree dated 09.01.2023 and therefore, filed the I.As. under both the revision petitions i.e. to condone the delay of 672 days and to set aside the judgment and decree dated 09.01.2023. 8. The trial Court allowed I.A. No. 627 of 2024 in O.S. No. 4712 of 2022 on 31.12.2024 by passing the following order: “7. POINT:- The suit is filed for recovery of money. It is the contention of the petitioner is in need for financial assistance, he took a hand loan of Rs.5,00,000/- through cheque bearing No.000015 drawn on Indian Overseas Bank dated 08.09.2021 from respondent/plaintiff and not of Rs.7,00,000/- as claimed in the suit. Since the defendant is contending that he has good case to defend and he is not liable to pay the suit amount, this Court is of the opinion that to avoid multiplicity of litigation, the point is answered in the affirmative and the delay of 672 days is condoned.”(verbatim reproduced) 9. The trial Court allowed I.A. No. 628 of 2024 in O.S. No. 4712 of 2022 on 31.12.2024 by passing the following order: “6. POINT:- The suit is filed for recovery of money and the same was decreed ex-parte. It is the contention of the petitioner is in need for financial assistance, he took a hand loan of Rs.5,00,000/- through cheque bearing No.000015 drawn on Indian Overseas Bank dated 08.09.2021 from respondent/plaintiff and not of Rs.7,00,000/- as claimed in the suit. POINT:- The suit is filed for recovery of money and the same was decreed ex-parte. It is the contention of the petitioner is in need for financial assistance, he took a hand loan of Rs.5,00,000/- through cheque bearing No.000015 drawn on Indian Overseas Bank dated 08.09.2021 from respondent/plaintiff and not of Rs.7,00,000/- as claimed in the suit. Since the defendant is contending that he has good case to defend and he is not liable to pay the suit amount, this Court is of the opinion that to avoid multiplicity of litigation, it is just and essential to dispose off the matter on merits, as the rights of both the parties are involved. Hence in the light of the principles of natural justice, this application is allowed…” (verbatim reproduced) 10. Aggrieved by the above orders, the present Civil Revision Petitions are preferred by the plaintiff. 11. In the grounds of the revision petitions, it is pleaded that sufficient cause is not shown for condoning the delay of 672 days and the reasons have not mentioned for preferring the petition to set aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 09.01.2023 within a time prescribed under Limitation Act , 1963. It is pleaded that the petitioner had knowledge about the judgment and decree dated 09.01.2023 by 12.07.2023 when he resisted the execution warrant filed by the Court bailiff, undertaking dated 12.07.2023 and cheque dated 27.07.2023 issued for the decretal amount of Rs.8,38,500/- and further, crucial admissions are made admitting the liability in the promissory note dated 07.09.2021 and the issuance of the cheque bearing No.000096 dated 15.06.2022 in favour of the petitioner. It is emphasized that the impugned orders are bereft of reasons except for relying on the defence raised by the respondent/defendant. It is pleaded that the respondent/defendant has filed the I.As., only to avoid attachment of the schedule property in E.P. No. 1004 of 2024 with the intention of transferring the said flat to third parties. I.A. No. 628 of 2024 is barred under Rule 55 of the Civil Rules of Practice. On account of undisputed facts pleaded and voluntary admission of the liability, there are no grounds to set aside the judgment and decree dated 09.01.2023 in the summary suit. The impugned order in I.A. No. 628 of 2024 directing the plaintiff to deposit 50% of the admitted amount of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest and costs is patently illegal. On account of undisputed facts pleaded and voluntary admission of the liability, there are no grounds to set aside the judgment and decree dated 09.01.2023 in the summary suit. The impugned order in I.A. No. 628 of 2024 directing the plaintiff to deposit 50% of the admitted amount of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest and costs is patently illegal. It is pleaded that the trial Court failed to understand the object and purpose of summary procedure. Therefore, the impugned orders dated 31.12.2024 are liable to be set aside. 12. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued that the orders passed by the trial Court does not give any reasons for condoning the inordinate delay of 672 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 09.01.2023. It emphasizes that lack of reasoning is a specific ground for setting aside the impugned order. In that context, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kushuma Devi v. Sheopati Devi (Dead) and others, (2019) 5 SCC 744 , Shree Mahavir Carbon Limited v. Om Prakash Jalan (Financer) and Another, (2015) 12 SCC 653 with respect to the admissions made by the respondent/defendant taking hand loan of Rs.5,00,000/- during covid pandemic. He also placed reliance on the judgment of the High Court of the Andhra Pradesh in Koganti Poornachandra Rao v. Yarranguntla Marry Matalda, 2023 (3) ALT 173 with respect to issuance of signed blank promissory note and blank cheque while disputing the loan amount borrowed. 13. In response, learned counsel for the respondent argued that the promissory note and cheque are fabricated while filing the summary suit and that the defendant did not get an opportunity to defend the suit due to lapse on the part of his counsel who was more knowledgeable on criminal law while having limited knowledge on the civil law. It is argued that lapse on the part of the learned counsel should not be allowed to cause serious prejudice to the party. It is argued that in view of the lapse committed by the counsel, an opportunity should be given to the respondent/defendant to contest the summary suit and therefore, there are no grounds to set aside the impugned order passed in the I.As. under the revision petitions. 14. It is argued that in view of the lapse committed by the counsel, an opportunity should be given to the respondent/defendant to contest the summary suit and therefore, there are no grounds to set aside the impugned order passed in the I.As. under the revision petitions. 14. A perusal of the record shows that the revision petitioner filed summary suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.7,59,666/- and future interest. In said summary suit, the defendant has received summons on 16.11.2022 and thereafter, he engaged a counsel by name K.Venkataiah to represent the suit. On 20.12.2022, the defendant received judgment summons. However, the defendant and his counsel failed to appear within ten (10) days of receiving the summons in the suit on 16.11.2022 and the judgment summons on 20.12.2022 and therefore, the judgment and decree was passed on 09.01.2023. The defendant did not appear and seek leave to defend the suit resulting in the suit being decreed. 15. When it comes to filing of the I.As., the case of the respondent/defendant is that he came to know about the suit when E.P. No. 1004 of 2024 and E.P. No. 255 of 2023 for recovery of an amount of Rs.8,94,840/- were filed and after filing the said E.Ps., when the defendant received summons on 17.10.2024, he engaged a counsel by name K. Venkataiah and filed vakalath in E.P. No. 1004 of 2024. Thereafter, he engaged another advocate by name Deepak Sidhanthi, who filed no objection in E.P. No. 1004 of 2024. Thereafter, on verification, the new counsel came to know about the summary suit in O.S. No. 4712 of 2022 filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.7,59,666/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum under Order XXXVII read with Section 26 Order VII Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC. 16. The defendant has lost his father during covid pandemic and at that time, due to financial difficulties, he sought financial assistance and took hand loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintiff through cheque bearing No.000015 drawn on Indian Overseas Bank dated 08.09.2021 but not Rs.7,00,000/- as claimed in the suit. The defendant claims to have signed a blank promissory note and blank cheque bearing No.000096 on the belief that the plaintiff would reflect the actual loan amount. The plaintiff’s brother namely D.Suresh Kumar, used to collect the interest amount of Rs.15,000/- per month by cash till August, 2022. The defendant claims to have signed a blank promissory note and blank cheque bearing No.000096 on the belief that the plaintiff would reflect the actual loan amount. The plaintiff’s brother namely D.Suresh Kumar, used to collect the interest amount of Rs.15,000/- per month by cash till August, 2022. Thereafter, the defendant discovered the promissory note and cheque has been altered to reflect Rs.7,00,000/- instead of Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Further, the defendant admitted to have received the suit summons on 16.11.2022 and Sri. K. Venkataiah filed vakalath on 21.11.2022 and judgment summons were received on 20.12.2022 but the defendant’s counsel, who primarily practices criminal law, did not have adequate knowledge about the civil procedure and thereafter, did not filed leave to defend petition within ten (10) days from the date of receipt of summons resulting in the ex parte decree. 17. In view of the reasons stated, i.e., counsel, who is practicing criminal law, not having adequate knowledge in civil law resulting in passing of the decree, the delay of 672 days in filing the set aside petition is sought to be condoned and judgment and decree dated 09.01.2023 is sought to be set aside. The reason for condoning the delay is denied by the plaintiff who alleged that the defendant had knowledge about the judgment and decree all along and to demonstrate the same, the plaintiff referred the execution warrant of attachment dated 12.07.2023 in E.P. No. 255 of 2023 when the bailiff of the Court visited the resident of the defendant for execution of the warrant. The defendant resisted execution of warrant and convinced the plaintiff with false assurance to pay the decretal amount. The defendant issued a cheque bearing No.000008 dated 27.07.2023 from the account of his wife namely Smt. SanjanaSambrani for the decretal amount in E.P. No. 255 of 2023. Further, the defendant executed undertaking on 12.07.2023 to pay the decretal amount and to face civil and penal liabilities in case, the cheque dated 27.07.2023 is dishonoured. The defendant avoided execution of attachment warrants dated 14.09.2023 and 08.03.2024 by moving the movable properties from his residence. On filing of E.P. No. 1004 of 2024, the defendant made appearance and filed counter only to delay the execution and avoid attachment of the flat by transferring the flat to third parties and the I.As. The defendant avoided execution of attachment warrants dated 14.09.2023 and 08.03.2024 by moving the movable properties from his residence. On filing of E.P. No. 1004 of 2024, the defendant made appearance and filed counter only to delay the execution and avoid attachment of the flat by transferring the flat to third parties and the I.As. are filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 672 days in filing the set aside petition and under Order XXXVIII Rule 4 of the CPC to set aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 09.01.2023. 18. The version of the defendant is self-contradictory as on one hand, the defendant acknowledges receipts of suit summons on 16.11.2022 and judgment summons on 20.12.2022 and on the other hand, claims to have learned about the ex parte judgment and decree only after receiving notice in E.P. No. 1004 of 2024 after appointing K.Venkataiah followed by Deepak Sidhanthi, counsel on his behalf. Having received the suit summons on 16.11.2022 and judgment summons on 20.11.2022, the defendant would have no locus standi to claim that he had no knowledge about the suit or judgment and decree passed until receiving notices in the E.P. No. 1004 of 2024. Another reason cited for non-appearance while the summary suit was pending is that the counsel engaged by name Sri. K.Venkataiah, primarily practices criminal law and had limited knowledge in civil law and therefore, did not give proper guidance about filing of leave to defend petition within ten (10) days of receipt of the suit summons and judgment summons. This reason i.e., lack of knowledge on the part of the counsel for the defendant about civil procedure could have been considered in case there are no other incriminating facts to show that the defendant had no knowledge about the judgment and decree. To the contrary in the instant case, the record shows that the decree was passed on 09.01.2023 and then E.P. No. 255 of 2023 2 was filed for recovery of the decretal amount and that attachment of movable property was ordered on 15.06.2023. To the contrary in the instant case, the record shows that the decree was passed on 09.01.2023 and then E.P. No. 255 of 2023 2 was filed for recovery of the decretal amount and that attachment of movable property was ordered on 15.06.2023. The said execution warrant was resisted and the bailiff of the Court submitted a report which reads as follows: “Report I, K. ChittiBabu, bailiff of CCC, Hyd State on oath as follows that I had been to the given Jdr Address premises Along with DHR on date 12/07/2023, there said Jdr present at the time then I shown the hon’ble Court warrant and explain its contents. When I asked to pay the warrant amount. He failed so as per orders when I was going to attach the movable articles lying in the jdr premises, He resisted so U could not execute the warrant, Hence, this warrant returned as unexecuted.”(verbatim reproduced) 19. There is another document title undertaking dated 12.07.2023, wherein, the defendant had given an undertaking to pay decretal amount and issued the cheque in his wife’s name viz., Smt. Sanjana Sambrani vide cheque bearing No.000008 dated 27.07.2023 for Rs.8,38,500/-. The defendant has given an undertaking to face civil and criminal action in case the said cheque is dishonoured. The said undertaking is extracted and produced below: “Undertaking Dated: 12/7/2023 I, Sanjay Sambrani, S/o. Late. Sridhar Sambrani R/o. Flat No.102, Jaya Nivas, H.No.10-2-317/8, Vijaynagar Colony, Hyderabad, today issued my wife Cheque namely SanjanaSambrani vide Cheque No.000008 dated.27-07-2023 for Rs.8,38,500/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Thirty Eight Thousand Five Hundred only) drawn on HDFC Bank Mallepally, Vijaynagar Colony in Full and Final Settlement to Sri.D.Krishna Kumar, Decree Holder in E.P.No.255/2023 in O.S. No.4712/2022 on the file of IX Junior Civil Judge, CCC Hyderabad, If the above Cheque is not cleared, you are at liberty to take Civil and Criminal action against myself & my wife.”(verbatim reproduced) 20. The above mentioned bailiff return report and undertaking of the defendant clearly demonstrate that the defendant had knowledge about the judgment and decree from the time of filing of E.P. No. 255 of 2023 and receiving notice in the said E.P. 21. The defendant resisted attachment of movable properties and moved away movables to avoid attachment. In the circumstances, the second E.P. i.e., E.P. No.1004 of 2024 was filed seeking attachment of the residential flat of the defendant. At that time, I.As. The defendant resisted attachment of movable properties and moved away movables to avoid attachment. In the circumstances, the second E.P. i.e., E.P. No.1004 of 2024 was filed seeking attachment of the residential flat of the defendant. At that time, I.As. under the revision petitions were filed. The defendant did not make any attempt to challenge the judgment and decree in June, 2023 when he received notices in E.P. No. 255 of 2023 which was filed seeking attachment of movables. No defence was taken about fabricating the promissory note to indicate Rs.7,00,000/- when loan taken was only Rs.5,00,000/-. In his own handwriting, the defendant has given undertaking to pay the decretal amount of Rs.8,38,500/-, the defence of fabrication of promissory note and the cheque is made for the first time at the time of filing of the I.As. under the revision petitions. 22. In view of the aforementioned discussed facts and circumstances, it is borne by record that the defendant had knowledge about the judgment and decree dated 09.01.2023 from the time of receiving the judgment summons dated 20.12.2023 and receipt of notice in E.P. No. 255 of 2023 when warrant was issued for attachment of movables. Some attempts were made to pay the decretal amount by issuing the cheques and written undertaking dated 12.07.2023. Therefore, to claim that the defendant learned about the judgment and decree in the summary suit only in the year 2024 upon receipt of notice in E.P. No. 1004 of 2024 nothing but concocted story created for the purpose of condoning the delay. The defendant not only failed to show sufficient cause but the record also demonstrates that the defendant did not approach the Court with clean hands. Any person who approaches the Court with unclean hands is not entitled to any relief. Therefore, the trial Court ought to have denied the relief sought in the I.As. under the revision petitions. The trial Court completely ignored the contents of the counter filed by the plaintiff. It appears that the impugned orders are passed without perusing the affidavit and the counter filed by the respective parties. 23. Accordingly, both the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed setting aside the orders dated31.12.2024 passed in I.A. Nos.627 and 628 of 2024 in O.S. No. 4712 of 2022 by the learned IX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. There shall be no order as to costs. 23. Accordingly, both the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed setting aside the orders dated31.12.2024 passed in I.A. Nos.627 and 628 of 2024 in O.S. No. 4712 of 2022 by the learned IX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.