IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE 18th DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5055 of 2009 Between: G.Lurdhaiah … Petitioner And M/s.Sriram Chits Pvt. Ltd., and others … Respondents This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5055 of 2009 ORDER: - Petitioner, who is the defendant in the suit viz., O.S.No.249 of 2003 filed by the 1st respondent/plaintiff for recovery of the mortgaged amounts, was set ex parte for not filing the written statement on 08.04.2004 and an ex parte decree was also passed in the said suit on 13.09.2005. For due execution of the decree when the E.P. is filed, the petitioner filed a petition under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex parte decree and the impugned I.A. is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 1164 days stating that the suit transaction filed by the plaintiff is vitiated by fraud and that the plaintiff fraudulently obtained the decree against him which is nothing short of an offence under Section 210 IPC. The documentary evidence filed by the plaintiff is manipulated and the memorandum of deposit of title deeds is fictuous. The deposit of title deed with the plaintiff with intention to create equitable mortgage is utterly false even to the knowledge of the plaintiff because number of sale transactions took place against the alleged mortgaged property. There was nothing to be mortgaged on 24.09.1999 to the plaintiff. The 1st defendant removed the title deed bearing No.7712 of 1979 and was delivered to one Goli Showri in the year 1999 itself. There were no terms between him and his son Goli Showri since 06.02.1997. The said Goli Showri appears to be behind the alleged deposit of title deeds in favour of the plaintiff and after receipt of the summons his second son obtained his signatures on vakalath forms promising him to look after the litigation. Since he is suffering from ophthalmic and renal fever, he did not pursue the transaction. There was nothing in his name which is sought to be auctioned and the property under the alleged mortgage was already sold by him to different people. Hence the delay may be condoned. Except the ipsi dixit statement as referred above, the petitioner has not assigned any cogent or convincing reasons in support of the said plea. When the petitioner was set ex parte for his failure to file the written statement on 08.04.2004, he has not taken any steps to see that the said ex parte order passed against him is set aside and to file a written statement. Absolutely there is no contest from the petitioner by filing a written statement or along with the impugned petition also he has not filed any written statement to show his bona fides. Even if the ex parte decree is set aside, unless the order setting him ex parte is set aside, he cannot file the written statement, which he has not offered till now. Therefore, the present petition is filed only to drag on the proceedings to take advantage of the loopholes in the procedure. No illegality is discernable with the discretion exercised by the lower court, warranting interference by this Court. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J 18.11.2011 lmv HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5055 of 2009 18.11.2011 lmv