HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.132 of 2011 Date : 25.01.2011 Between : Paniki Ramanamma. …..Petitioner And Arani Nagamma & another. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.132 of 2011 ORDER : This civil revision petition under Section 115 of C.P.C., is filed by the defendant in O.S.No.361 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nellore, aggrieved by the order, dated 07.10.2010, passed in I.A.No.745 of 2010 in the said suit. Respondents herein have filed the suit in O.S.No.361 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nellore, for recovery of vacant possession, damages and mandatory injunction against the petitioner herein. In the said suit, petitioner has received summons and engaged an Advocate. As the written statement was not filed inspite of granting time, the petitioner was called absent and the matter was posted for evidence of plaintiffs. By recording the evidence of plaintiffs, the suit was decreed as early as on 09.11.2006, and later, E.P.No.20 of 2010 was filed. Thereafter, I.A.No.745 of 2010 was filed under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, with a delay of 1300 days, seeking to set aside the exparte decree. By impugned order, the Court below has rejected the said application by recording a finding that there are no grounds to allow the said petition. In this revision petition, it is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that inspite of mentioning sufficient grounds, the Court below has not condoned the delay in filing the application for setting aside the exparte decree. I have perused the copy of the affidavit filed in I.A.No.745 of 2010. In the said affidavit, receipt of suit summons and engaging an Advocate to appear on behalf of petitioner herein, are admitted. It is further stated that she came to know about the exparte decree only on receipt of notices in E.P. proceedings, and as such, she was kept in dark. When the suit summons are served, it is for the petitioner to pursue the suit proceedings. By engaging an Advocate, it is not open for the petitioner to plead that she was kept in dark. Although it is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that the husband of the petitioner was lookingafter the proceedings, there is no such averment in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.745 of 2010, in the absence of which, there are no reasons to condone the abnormal delay of 1300 days in filing the application for setting aside the exparte decree. For the aforesaid reasons, and in view of the reasons recorded by the Court below, I do not find any illegality in dismissing the application in I.A.No.745 of 2010, requiring interference of this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. Revision petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 25th January 2011 ajr