C.Praveen Kumar, J. - (1.)Assailing the order dated 27.6.2019, passed in I.A.No.42 of 2019 in O.S. No.16 of 2016 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, wherein an application filed by the petitioners/defendants to condone the delay of 552 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree and judgment dated 27.6.2017 was dismissed, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(2.)Originally, respondents/plaintiffs filed the suit for possession of 15 square yards of site on the southern side and 20 square yards of site on the western side of the plaint schedule property and for a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the illegal structures namely the steps and a gate raised in the common path way. Ex parte decree came to be passed in the said suit on 27.6.2017. It is said that on 12.12.2018, during the absence of defendants in the house, the plaintiffs, along with some other persons, claiming to be the employees of the Court, came to the premises and proclaimed that the defendants have to vacate the premises by demolishing the impugned structure. On coming to know about the same, the defendants made enquiries before the Court which revealed that on 18.1.2016 the defendants were set ex parte as they failed to attend the court and consequently, an ex parte decree came to be passed in the month of June, 2018.
(3.)It is pleaded that the petitioners are not aware about initiation of the suit and the order passed, since no notices were served on them. It is said that there is dispute between the brother of the father-in-law and others on one side & the plaintiffs on the other side and taking advantage of the same, the present suit has been initiated. It is further pleaded that on receipt of court notices, the defendants met the 2nd plaintiff and questioned her about filing of the suit, to which she replied that the suit came to be filed because of disputes with Goddati Naga Lakshmana Swami and others and she further represented that she would withdraw the suit against the defendants. She further told them that there is no necessity for the defendants to attend the Court. Believing her words, the defendants kept quiet without taking any further action in the suit. But, however, the 2nd plaintiff went against the assurance given and obtained an ex parte decree behind the back, which they came to know on 12.12.2018. Having regard to the above, it is pleaded that there is delay in filing the suit.