- (1.) These two revisions arise under similar circumstances.
(2.) The respondent in both the revisions filed the suits in the Court of VIII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for declaration of title and eviction of the 1 st petitioner, in the respective C.R.Ps. The 2nd petitioner is common, and he is impleaded as a proforma party, since the tenants stated that the 2nd petitioner is their landlord. The trial of the suits commenced, and PWs.l to 5 were examined on behalf of the respondent herein. At the stage of cross-examination of PW-5, the suit underwent several adjournments. Ultimately, the trial Court decreed the suits, through judgment dated 18-11-2005. The petitioners tiled applications under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C., to set aside the said decree. Since there was delay in submission of the application, they filed a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The trial Court dismissed the application, holding that, what were passed on 18-11-2005, are not ex parte decrees, and that there are no bona fides on the part of the petitioners.
(3.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the respondent.;