IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THIS THE SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1930 OF 2010 Between: Palla Saidulu S/o. Venkaiah …. Petitioner AND Bantu Manemma @ Masthanamma W/o. Butchi Reddy and others …. Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1930 OF 2010 ORDER: This revision is directed against the Order dated 27-02-2009 passed I.A. No.907 of 2007 in O.S. No.111 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda, whereby and whereunder, the learned Junior Civil Judge dismissed the petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 295 days in filing the petition under Order-IX Rule-13 CPC to set aside the ex parte decree passed in O.S. No.111 of 2006. 2. The petitioner is the defendant No.1 and whereas respondent No.1 is the plaintiff in O.S. No.111 of 2006. Respondent Nos.2 to 5 are the co-defendants in the said suit. Summons were served on the defendants in the suit. Defendant Nos.1 (petitioner), 2 and 4 failed to enter appearance before the Court. Defendant Nos.3 & 5 appeared before the Court and failed to submit the written statement. Consequently, on 25-08-2006, an ex parte order came to be passed by the trial Court. Thereupon, the defendants filed I.A No.846 of 2006 under Order-IX Rule-7 CPC to set aside the ex parte order. The said I.A. was allowed on 01-08-2006 on condition of defendants filing the written statement on or before 23-08-2006. But, the defendants failed to comply with the conditional order and consequently, I.A. No.846 of 2006 ended in dismissal and an ex parte decree came to be passed in the suit. Thereafter, petitioners filed an application under Order-IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex parte decree and also moved I.A. No.907 of 2007 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 295 days in filing the petition under Order-IX Rule-13 CPC. Defendant No.1 has sworn in the affidavit filed in support of I.A No.907 of 2007. 3. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of I.A. No.907 of 2007 that the defendants could not file the written statement as defendant No.1 was suffering from white jaundice and he was bed ridden from June, 2006 to last week of June, 2007. Plaintiff filed counter affidavit resisting the application. 4. The learned Junior Civil Judge, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for both the parties, came to the conclusion that the defendants failed to offer sufficient reasons for condonation of delay of 295 days in filing the application under Order-IX Rule-13 CPC and accordingly dismissed the application by order dated 27-02-2009. Hence, this revision by defendant No.1. Defendants No.2 to 5 did not choose to challenge the order dated 27-02-2009 passed in I.A. No.907 of 2007. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner – defendant No.1 submits that the petitioner could not file the written statement within time allowed by the trial court as he was suffering from jaundice. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 – plaintiff submits that as on this date, final decree has also been passed on 02-06-2007 and thereby the revision has become infrucutous. 8. Be that as it may, petitioner pleaded in the affidavit filed in support of I.A. No.907 of 2007 that he suffered with white jaundice from June 2006 to last week of June 2007, but no document has been placed on record to show that he fell ill during the said period. In the absence of any document, the trial Court is justified in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner to condone the delay. 9. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J August 02, 2010. KTL