(1.) The application of the petitioner for setting aside the ex parte decree having been rejected and the same having been confirmed in appeal, this revision has been filed.
(2.) The opposite party had filed the suit - M.S. No. 42 of 1996 against the petitioner in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhanjanagar, for realisation of Rs. 14, 378.75 with pendente lite and future interest. The petitioner who is an Advocate did not file his written statement after some adjournments, as a result of which he was set ex parte on 2/9/1998. On 3/9/1998 the suit was taken up for ex parte hearing and the ex parte decree was passed on 10/9/1998. After ex parte decree was passed, the petitioner filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13. CPC for setting aside the same. In the application the petitioner stated that his wife was suffering seriously since 1/9/1998 and since he was busy rendering medical assistance to his wife, being the sole male member of the family he could not file the written statement, resulting the ex parte decree. The wife of the petitioner developed various complications and was under treatment till 6.3.1999 and during her ailment it was practically impossible for the petitioner to attend to even court work. After his wife recovered from ailment, the petitioner came to know about the ex parte decree and immediately filed an application for setting aside the same on 8.3.1999. Along with the application for setting aside the ex parte decree, a petition was also filed for condonation of delay in filing the aforesaid application.
(3.) The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) disbelieved the statement of the petitioner that he was not in a position to attend to the court work since on some occasions the petitioner had appeared before the learned S.D.J.M., Bhanjanagar, as well as in the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) and rejected the prayer for setting aside the ex parte decree. The appeal filed by the petitioner was' also dismissed on the very same ground.