HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3212 OF 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Section 115 of CPC, is directed against the docket order made in I.A. No.422 of 2009 in O.S.No.59 of 2002 dated 10-02-2010, whereunder the application filed by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act read with 151 of CPC, while filing the application under Order – IX Rule – 13 of CPC, for condoning the delay of 2,334 days was dismissed. 2. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein, plaintiffs, laid the suit in O.S. No.59 of 2002 against the petitioner, defendant No.1, and respondent No.3 herein, defendant No.2, for recovery of money on the basis of a promissory note and the same was decreed . Thereafter, petitioner filed an application under Order – IX Rule - 13 of CPC to set aside the ex parte decree and since there was delay of 2,334 days in filing the said application to restore the suit, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking to condone the delay in filing the application to restore the suit was also filed. The delay condonation application was dismissed. Aggrieved of the same, this revision is filed. 3. It was the case of the petitioner that summons were issued in the suit and a counsel was engaged on his behalf and he made his appearance on 18-11-2002. Thereafter, petitioner failed to attend the Court since his wife fell sick and only recently he came to know about the decree passed in the suit, therefore there is delay of 2,334 days in filing the restoration application along with the application to condone the delay in filing the same. The said application was resisted by the respondents - plaitniffs. It is stated that the petitioner having knowledge about passing of the decree, intentionally remained ex parte allowing the trial Court to pass the decree and that the petitioner filed I.P. No.22 of 2001 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kandukur, showing as many as 93 creditors but without showing the respondents – plaintiffs as one of creditors and that contention of the petitioner that his wife fell sick is false. Further, no proper explanation for the abnormal delay of 2,334 days in filing the restoration application was shown. 4. After considering the entire material, trial Court came to the conclusion that though the petitioner would contend that his wife fell sick, as such, he could not attend the Court and contest the matter, the same cannot be appreciated for the reason that he was very much in touch with the Court having filed insolvency petition before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kandukur, showing as many as 93 creditors. Further, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kandukur, also petitioner did not file any document to show that his wife fell sick and therefore the explanation submitted by the petitioner for the abnormal delay of 2,334 days in filing the restoration application is not satisfactory. 5. Though, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the delay was not because of any failure on his part and only because of the fact that his wife became sick, as such, he could not attend the Court, this explanation cannot be considered without there being any oral or documentary evidence supporting the said contention. No medical certificate or any affidavit was placed showing sufficient cause to condone the abnormal delay of 2,334 days in filing the application to condone the delay while filing the application for restoration of the suit. 6. In view of the above, the Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 7. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ C.V. RAMULU, J August 2, 2010. PV