HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.R.P.No.3125 of 2010 O R D E R: The Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 19.04.2010 in I.A.No.510 of 2009 in I.P.No.28 of 2005 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tenali. The petitioner has filed I.P.No.28 of 2005 to declare him as an insolvent and the said I.P. was allowed on 16.10.2006. The 3rd respondent who was the petitioner in I.A.No.510 of 2009 and a creditor has appeared with an advocate. But, subsequently, he was said to have remained ex parte and an ex parte order was passed. Thereafter, A.S.No.144 of 2008 was filed challenging the order of declaring the revision petitioner as insolvent and the IV Additional District Judge in the judgment dated 22.12.2008 dismissed the appeal giving liberty to the 3rd respondent to file an application to set aside the ex parte decree. Thereafter, I.A.No.510 of 2009 was filed to condone the delay of 820 days in filing the application for setting aside the ex parte decree and the said petition was allowed and aggrieved by the said order, the present revision is filed. The learned counsel for the petitioner strongly contends that the reasons mentioned for condoning the delay are not tenable and merely because the appellate Court has given a direction to file an application to set aside the ex parte decree, it does not give any right, the lower Court has not properly considered the reasons and at any rate there was no proper explanation of the delay in not filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree and the reasons mentioned therein throwing the blame on the advocate are not tenable. It was also further pleaded that the insolvency petition was disposed on merits. It is true that most of the contentions raised by the counsel for the petitioner about the negligence and the lack of proof of the sufficient cause are apparently not acceptable. But, however, this is only an application for condonation of the delay in filing of the application. Evidently, the lower Court has not gone into the merits or the grounds of sufficient cause to set aside the ex parte decree. Evidently, the appeal itself is said to have been filed by condonation of the delay. As can be seen that it was numbered in 2008, and the order was passed in 2006, and therefore, the continuation of the delay can only be due to the pendency of the appeal. Therefore, in the above circumstances, the delay in filing of setting aside ex parte decree cannot be said to be totally contributed by the 3rd respondent as he was agitating in the appellate Court about the tenability of the order. But, however, this itself is not sufficient for the 3rd respondent to get the necessary relief of setting aside the ex parte decree unless and until it is proved that there is sufficient ground. Therefore, mere condonation of the delay will not prejudice to the contention of the revision petitioner and the lower Court shall give an opportunity to the revision petitioner to show as to how the contention of the 3rd respondent is not proved and as to how the ex parte decree cannot be set aside for the reasons mentioned by the 3rd respondent. The lower Court shall take necessary evidence and pass orders on merits and the condonation of delay application is no ground to set aside the ex parte decree. The lower Court also can take into consideration the plea of the 3rd respondent whether his contentions can be raised before the Official Receiver even without setting aside the ex parte decree. Since if any assets are suppressed or any property was not shown, the Official Receiver has got power under the Insolvency Act to bring into the assets of the insolvent and distribute to the creditors. With the above directions, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J 2nd February, 2011 PNV