ORDER
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
1. This civil revision petition is filed against the order dated 1.3.2004 passed by the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court at Hyderabad in I.A. No. 377 of 1999 in S.C.No. 49 of 1998.
2. The petitioner claims to be the owner of non-residential premises and that the respondent is her tenant. She initiated proceedings to evict the respondent. She also filed a small cause suit being S.C. No. 49 of 1998 for recovery of arrears of rent from March to July, 1995. That suit was decreed ex parte on 3.7.1998.
3. The respondent filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. to set aside the ex parte decree. Since there was delay of 300 days in filing the application, he filed I.A. No. 377 of 1999 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The petitioner resisted the same. Through order dated 1.3.2004, the Trial Court allowed the I.A. and condoned the delay.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent was served with summons and despite the same, he has not chosen to enter appearance. He contends that the respondent was aware of the ex parte decree dated 3.7.1998 even by September 1998 and despite the same, he filed the application seven months thereafter. Learned Counsel also contends that the Trial Court did not appreciate the matter with reference to the facts borne out by record.
5. On 30.4.2004, this Court directed notice to the respondent. Though he was served with the notice on 26.6.2004, he has not chosen either to appear in person or through an advocate.
6. The petitioner filed a small cause suit for recovery of certain amount representing arrears of rent. The suit was decreed ex parte on 3.7.1998. The respondent filed an application to set aside the ex parte decree together with an application to condone delay of 300 days. The reasons pleaded by the respondent were that soon after he received summons in the suit, he entrusted the matter to Sri A. Balkishan Rao, Advocate, who was also representing him in R.C. No. 609 of 1996 and somehow or the other the vakalat was not filed on his behalf. He also pleaded that he fell sick after he entrusted the matter to his Counsel.
7. The petitioner filed a counter denying the assertions of the respondent. One specific fact the petitioner pleaded was that while deposing in R.C. No. 609 of 1996, it was elicited through the respondent that S.C. No. 49 of 1998 filed by her for recovery of arrears of rent was decreed in July 1998.
8. The respondent came forward with an application to condone delay of 300 days. It is not in dispute that he was served with summons in the suit. The grounds pleaded by the respondent for condonation of delay were that though he entrusted the matter to his Counsel, he has not chosen to file the vakalat and that the respondent himself became sick afterwards. So far as the plea of sickness is concerned, he did not place any material before the Trial Court either as regards the nature of ailment or the duration of such ailment.
9. If it is a fact that the Counsel engaged by the respondent did not choose to file vakalat and that the respondent did not have the information about the ex parte decree till he presented the application under Order IX, Rule 13 C.P.C., there would have been some scope to show indulgence to the respondent. However, if it emerges that the respondent had knowledge of the ex parte decree and he has not chosen to file the application under Order IX, Rule 13 C.P.C. immediately thereafter, the delay cannot be condoned.
10. The petitioner and respondent herein are parties to R.C. No. 609 of 1996. The respondent herein was examined in chief as R.W.1 on 1.9.1998 and cross-examined on 9.9.1998. In the cross-examination, it was clearly elicited from him that S.C.No. 49 of 1998 filed by the petitioner herein for recovery of arrears of rent from March to July 1995 was decreed. The relevant portion of the deposition reads as follows:
“The petitioner also filed a suit against me to recover the arrears of rent from March 1995 to July 1995 vide in S.C. No. 49 of 1998 before the Additional Chief Judge, CSCC, Hyderabad. The said suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner. Ex.P7 is certified copy of the judgment in S.C. No. 49 of 1998. I have not preferred an appeal on it.”
11. From the above, it is clear that the respondent was aware of the ex parte decree in S.C. No. 49 of 1998 by September 1998 itself. The application to condone delay was filed on 30.4.1999. Hardly any explanation is offered for the delay between September 1998 and April 1999. The deposition of the respondent clearly demonstrates that he did not plead true facts before the Trial Court when he came forward with an application to condone delay of 300 days.
12. Condonation of delay is not a matter of course. With the passing of an ex parte decree, a valuable right stands conferred on the concerned party. The condonation of delay and setting aside the ex parte decree would have the effect of taking away such rights. Though the emphasis would be to ensure that the proceedings are decided on merits as far as possible, a party who was not diligent in pursuing the proceedings cannot be permitted to plead falsehood with impunity. The facts of the present case clearly disclose that the respondent did not state the correct facts and has even mislead the Trial Court by pleading that he filed the application under Order DC, Rule 13 C.P.C. as soon as he came to know about the ex parte decree.
13. The suit itself was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,000/- that too towards arrears of rent for the premises belonging to the petitioner. She had to institute number of proceedings not only to evict the respondent but even to recover the arrears of rents. The decree passed by the Trial Court for a sum of Rs. 5,000/- that too after giving adequate opportunity to the respondent cannot be set aside on the basis of the falsehoods pleaded by the respondent.
14. The order under revision is accordingly set aside. The civil revision petition is allowed.