THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH C.R.P.Nos.5628 and 5644 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: The parties are one and the same in these civil revision petitions. Therefore, these two civil revision petitions are taken up together for disposal by way of common order. The petitioner herein is defendant No.2 in the suit in O.S.No.435 of 2001 filed by the 1st respondent-Bank for recovery of an amount of Rs.8,44,054/-. The petitioner, who is a guarantor for the 2nd respondent-1st defendant, mortgaged the plaint schedule property as an equitable mortgage. However, the petitioner contended that he never mortgaged the said property as guarantor for obtaining loan by the 2nd respondent/1st defendant. The petitioner further stated that the lower Court has decreed the suit ex-parte without even serving suit summons, which is illegal and erroneous. The petitioner further stated that the 1st respondent, basing on the said decree, has filed E.P.No.172 of 2005, to proceed with auction of the said property. At that juncture, the petitioner filed two interlocutory applications, I.A.No.1156 of 2009 under Section 5 of Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 2179 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex-parte decree; and I.A.No.1157 of 2009 under Order XXI Rule 26 and Section 151 CPC seeking stay of all proceedings in E.P.No.172 of 2005. Both the interlocutory applications have been dismissed by the lower Court by a common order, dated 24.08.2009. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed these civil revision petitions. A perusal of the records, it is evident that the 1st respondent Bank filed the suit against both the defendants for recovery of money based on the mortgage of the petitioner/2nd defendant. The petitioner/2nd defendant stood as guarantor for the loan sanctioned by the bank in favour of the 1st defendant/2nd respondent. The petitioner deposited title deed, dated 04- 04-1974 with the Bank with an intention to create an equitable mortgage. The petitioner as well as the 1st defendant engaged an Advocate and filed vakalat and the matter underwent several adjournments and as both the defendants failed to file written statement in spite of imposing costs, they were set ex-parte on 18-04-2003. Consequently, preliminary decree was passed on 01-08-2003 and final decree was passed on 29-10-2004 in terms of the preliminary decree. Thereafter, the Bank filed E.P.No.172 of 2005 for recovery of the amount by auctioning the mortgaged property and when the E.P. was posted on 10-08-2009 for auction, the 2nd defendant filed the aforesaid two applications contending that suit summons were not served. A perusal of the impugned order goes to show that the defendants were issued suit summons and they have also engaged an advocate, but due to the default of the defendants in filing written statement, in spite of imposing costs, they were set ex-parte on 18-04-2003 and a preliminary decree was passed on 01.08.2003 and a final decree was passed on 29-10-2004. Further, the petitioner/2nd defendant has not shown sufficient reason explaining the inordinate delay of 2179 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex-parte decree. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the court below had rightly dismissed the said two applications and as such, I do not find any infirmity legal or otherwise in the impugned order so as to call for interference by this Court. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 01-07-2011 Prv