THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH C.R.P. NO. 953 of 2011 DATE: 29.10.2011 BETWEEN: Kolluru Padmavathi and ors petitioner And Kolluru Venkata Subbamma and ors respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Mr P Jagadish Chandra Prasad Counsel for the respondent: The Court made the following order: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH C.R.P. NO. 953 of 2011 ORDER: This revision is filed questioning the order and decree dated 7.2.2011 in I.A. No. 149 of 2010 in O.S. No. 500 of 2007 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tenali, Guntur in dismissing the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 652 days in filing the set aside petition. The revision petitioners are defendants 1 to 4 and 6 in suit in O.S. No. 500 of 2007 filed for declaration of the title and for recovery of possession. The revision petitioners suffered an exparte decree dated 3.11.2007. They filed an application in I A No. 149 of 2010 to condone the delay of 652 days in filing an application to set aside the exparte decree. The reason sought for condonation of the delay is that summons were not served upon them and since compromise talks were going on, they did not proceed with the case and on failure of compromise efforts, filed the subject application. The Court below on consideration of the matter, declined to condone the delay and dismissed the said application. Hence, the present revision. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and perused the material available on record. Though it is not in dispute that summons were not served in the suit, the Court below after verifying the records found that despite receipt of notices at all stages, the petitioners failed to contest the suit and even in the chief examination affidavits and cross examination of P.W.1 and 2 they have not chosen to mention the details as regards the alleged compromise talks. Thus, it is clear that the only excuse taken by the petitioners for occurrence of delay is compromise talks and none were examined to prove the same and they failed to prove that delay occurred due to compromise talks. In the absence of sufficient cause to condone the delay, the Court below rightly declined to condone the abnormal delay and there is no illegality or irregularity warranting interference of this Court. The revision fails and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. ______________ V ESWARAIAH,J DATE: 29.10.2011 TVK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH C.R.P. NO. 953 of 2011 DATE:29.10.2011