HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P. No.2415 OF 2009 DATE:18-09-2009 BETWEEN: Karneedi Tatayya & Another …Petitioners AND Nanduri Nagabhushanam …Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P. No.2415 OF 2009 COMMON ORDER: The petitioners-defendants who suffered an ex parte decree, dated 24.11.2006 in O.S.No.70 of 2006 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, filed a petition under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. to set aside the ex parte decree along with impugned I.A.No.928 of 2007 under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay of 68 days in filing the petition under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. The affidavit sworn in by the 2nd petitioner which was filed along with the impugned I.A. discloses that his mother had been treated in hospital for four months due to which, he could not file the petition under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. and that there was no negligence in filing the petition and therefore, the delay has to be condoned. When the second petitioner was examined as P.W.1 on 23.10.2008 he did not produce the medical certificate said to have been issued by the doctor under Ex.P.1, dated 25.3.2008, but when he was cross-examined, the above said medical certificate has been produced. The lower Court after referring to Ex.P.1 held that if at all the second petitioner’s mother was treated and discharged from the hospital as shown in Ex.P.1, the discharge summary would be given to the second petitioner on the date when she was discharged but not after one year of discharge of the patient and accordingly dismissed the impugned I.A. In the affidavit filed along with the petition, except a bald statement that the 2nd petitioner’s mother had been treated in the hospital for four months for the ill-health, no particulars are given in the affidavit about the name of the hospital where his mother was treated nor the name of the doctor who treated her was mentioned which led the lower Court to draw an adverse inference that Ex.P.1 certificate produced by the 2nd petitioner dated 25.3.2008 is only an afterthought between the chief-examination and cross-examination and the same cannot be found fault. If the said evidence is excluded, there is absolutely no other evidence nor any reason was assigned by the petitioners for condoning the delay of 68 days in preferring the petition under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. Further it is also noticed that the petition under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. was filed and returned on 2.3.2007, but the same was re-presented only on 29.7.2007, which also speak columns that Ex.P.1 is set up as an afterthought. In view of the same, the discretion exercised by the lower Court does not suffer from any manifest illegality warranting interference by this Court. The revision fails and is accordingly dismissed at the threshold. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. SEPTEMBER 18, 2009 Tsr.