HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4016 OF 2009 DATE:31-12-2009 BETWEEN Govindan Selvaraj …Petitioner AND M/s.Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited …Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4016 OF 2009 ORDER: Petitioner-judgment debtor filed this revision assailing the orders of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada, dated 6.7.2009 dismissing I.A.No.312 of 2009 in O.S.No.132 of 2004 filed for condoning the delay of 565 days in filing the petition under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. to set aside the ex parte order, dated 7.5.2007 in O.S.No.132 of 2004. The only reason offered by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the petition is that as the suit summons were not duly served on him, he could not attend the Court and that he came to know about passing of ex parte decree only on receipt of summons in E.P.No.554 of 2004. He further stated that he was suffering from contagious disease for a long time and held up at Chennai due to bed-ridden. Considering the reasons offered by the petitioner, the lower Court by the impugned order dismissed the application holding that though the petitioner stated that he was suffering from ill-health and was held up at Chennai failed to produce any document to substantiate his plea. This Court to give a chance, while ordering notice before admission on 28.8.2008 directed the petitioner to deposit half of the decretal amount to the credit of E.P.No.554 of 2008 within three weeks. But, now the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not complied with the said conditional order. The suit itself was filed by the Bharat Sanchar Nigham Limited for recovery of the dues payable by the petitioner in connection with the telephone service provided by it. It appears that the petitioner has filed the present impugned application only to protract the litigation and to evade his liability. In the absence of explaining any sufficient cause for condoning the delay, the discretion exercised by the lower Court dismissing the impugned application does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this Court. The revision fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. DECEMBER 31, 2009 Tsr.