HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH C.R.P. NO. 57 OF 2009 Thursday, the Twenty Seventh of January, Two Thousand and Eleven Between Jampa Naga Raju Petitioner AND Jampa Lokamani and others Respondents ORDER: The petitioner is second defendant in the suit filed by the plaintiff against him and the first defendant. During pendency of the suit, the plaintiff died and his legal representatives were brought on record. It is stated that the suit was filed for partition of the joint family properties and the petitioner was set exparte and an exparte decree was passed on 19.7.2006. To set aside the exparte decree, the petitioner filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC along with an application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 359 days in filing the petition to set aside the exparte decree. The reasons stated for condoning the delay are that the petitioner was suffering with severe jaundice from 28.3.2006 and, therefore, he could not file written statement or appear before the court on 19.7.2006 and, therefore, he was set exparte and exparte decree was passed on 19.7.2006. Counter was filed opposing the condonation of delay, stating that the petitioner got filed vakalath on 5.1.2006 and he was set exparte on 3.4.2006 and he failed to file written statement and subsequently, an exparte decree was passed on 19.7.2006. After passing the exparte decree, the plaintiff file IA No. 678 of 2005 for passing a final decree and after receiving notices in the final decree petition, the said application is filed seeking to set aside the exparte decree along with a petition to condone the delay of 359 days in filing the said petition, without explaining the delay. Though the petitioner was set exparte on 3.4.2006, he did not take any steps to set aside the exparte order dated 3.4.2006 and kept quiet till the exparte decree is passed on 19.7.2006 and subsequently an application is filed for passing a final decree. In support of his contention that he was suffering with severe jaundice, no particulars have been stated about the medical prescription about his condition and no material whatsoever including any proof in support of ailment or the treatment are filed. In the absence of any such averments and any material in proof of his undergoing treatment for such a long period, the court below has rightly refused to condone the delay of about one year. I do not see any legal infirmity or otherwise warranting interference by this court. Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ Justice V.Eswaraiah January 27, 2011 MAS