THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5619 of 2008 ORDER: 1 This court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on 09.06.2011 and adjourned the matter to enable the petitioner’s counsel to get instructions as to whether the decree has already been satisfied or not in view of the fact that there is no stay against the decree. Thereafter the matter was again heard in part on 21.07.2011 and at the request of the petitioner’s counsel it was adjourned to 02.09.2011 and from then to 14.09.2011. On the last date of adjournment, the matter was again heard and on request to get instructions, the matter was adjourned to 16.09.2011 i.e. today. Petitioner’s counsel is unable to get any information. Hence the Civil Revision Petition is being disposed of on merits. 2 Petitioner is respondent in O.P.No.285 of 2003 on the file of the District Judge, Adilabad, which was filed under sections 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 seeking compensation of Rs.5.00 lakhs for the injuries caused to the claimant in a scooter accident on 15.10.2002. The offending vehicle belongs to the petitioner, as such, he was arrayed as sole respondent in the said O.P. The Tribunal below allowed the O.P. under judgment dated 09.09.2004 granting compensation of Rs.50,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. together with costs. The petitioner herein filed an application thereafter stating that he is a Government servant working in Singareni collieries and that on account of his transfer to Yellandu, he could not get information about the O.P. and consequently the O.P. was decided ex parte. The said application of the petitioner to set aside the ex parte decree and for seeking condonation of delay of 1194 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree was heard by the court below and by the impugned order dated 03.11.2008 the application for condonation of delay was rejected on the ground that the petitioner failed to explain the delay properly and also failed to establish any sufficient cause. The present revision is directed against the said order. 3 It is evident from the impugned order itself that the petitioner was served with the summons in the O.P. and engaged a counsel who filed vakalat on his behalf. Thereafter in spite of number of adjournments and opportunities, petitioner failed to file written statement in the O.P. and failed to contest the O.P. on merits. After numerous adjournments, the court below examined P.W.1 on 28.07.2004 and allowed the O.P. ex parte by granting compensation of Rs.50,000/- as against Rs.5.00 lakhs claimed in the O.P. Though the O.P. was disposed of on 09.09.2004, four years thereafter the petitioner filed the impugned application to set aside the ex parte decree and for condonation of delay. The affidavit filed in support of the application is very cryptic and except stating that non filing of the written statement and appearance is not intentional, there is no explanation whatsoever nor the bona fides of the petitioner were otherwise established. The Court below, therefore, was right in dismissing the application for condonation of delay and consequently the petition to set aside the ex parte decree stood rejected. In this revision petition also I am unable to find any semblance of sufficient cause being made out by the petitioner. The impugned order, therefore, does not deserve any interference. 4 Accordingly this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be on order as to costs. -------------------------------------- VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J. 16.09.2011 Kvsn