THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:1430 of 2008 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 27.08.2007, in I.A.No.264 of 2007 in O.S.No.31 of 2003 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Narsipatnam, wherein the said application filed by the petitioners herein-defendants 1 and 2 under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte decree, was dismissed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. None appeared for the respondents. Perused the records. 3. 1st respondent herein-plaintiff filed the suit against the petitioners-defendants 1 and 2 and their mother-2nd respondent-3rd defendant for recovery of amount due under a loan transaction. Defendants entered their appearance, but subsequently remained ex parte. 4. P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and the plaintiff’s side evidence was closed. Subsequently, at the instance of the 3rd defendant, the matter was reopened and after contest by the 3rd defendant, the suit was decreed on 21.11.2005. Two years later, petitioners- defendants 1 and 2 filed the present application- I.A.No.264 of 2011 seeking to reopen the matter once again for setting aside the ex parte decree. Except making a bald averment in the affidavit that the petitioners are unwell at that time, no details of the alleged illness are furnished in the affidavit. It cannot for a moment be believed that both the petitioners fell ill at the same time and for a period of about one year nine months. In the absence of any medical evidence, the said plea of the petitioners that they were unwell at the relevant time remains vague and unsubstantiated. 5. The impugned order shows that sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioners-defendants 1 and 2 to contest the suit but they have not availed the same. Petitioners-defendants 1 and 2 did not even pay the costs imposed by the Court and therefore the evidence was closed and subsequently ex parte decree was passed. Even then, their mother-3rd defendant filed an application for setting aside the ex parte decree. Petitioners have not sought any opportunity to contest the proceedings. Long after the decree is passed, petitioners have filed I.A.No.264 of 2007 for setting aside the same on flimsy and unsubstantiated grounds. It is obvious that the petitioners intend to only protract the litigation and delay the execution of the decree. There are absolutely no merits in the Civil Revision Petition. The impugned order does not call for any interference. 6. In the result, Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. ______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY,J 22nd September, 2011. Tsy