THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH C.R.P.No.3049 of 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order, dated 06-04-2010, passed in I.A.No.422 of 2009 in O.S.No.282 of 2005 by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur, wherein the said application filed by the petitioners under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 423 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex- parte decree, was dismissed. The petitioners herein are defendants 1 and 2 in the suit in O.S.No.282 of 2005 on the file of the V Additional District Judge (FTC), Guntur, filed by the 4th respondent herein seeking specific performance of agreement of sale, dated 02-03-2005. It is stated that during pendency of this Civil Revision Petition, the 4th respondent died and his daughter, being the legal representative, was brought on record as the 5th respondent vide order in C.R.P.M.P.No.5126 of 2011. The suit was filed for specific performance of agreement of sale, dated 02-03-2005, executed by the petitioners in favour of the plaintiff for sale of the suit schedule property for a sum of Rs.12,50,000/-. It is stated that the 2nd petitioner herein, who is a bank employee, mortgaged the suit schedule property to the 1st respondent-ICICI Bank and became liable to pay rupees four lakhs and odd and the 1st petitioner received a sum of Rs.2,15,000/- on 02-03-2005, Rs.2,50,000/- on 06-03-2005 and Rs.1,85,000/- on 10-03-2005 under an agreement of sale. It is stated that the petitioners have received Rs.6,50,000/- and balance payable is only Rs.6,00,000/-, out of which, the petitioners agreed to discharge the mortgage debt due to the bank, but the petitioners failed to perform their part of contract. Therefore, the 4th respondent herein filed the suit with an application to permit him to deposit a sum of Rs.4,83,000/- payable to the bank. It is further stated that the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.6,52,866/- as per the order of the court below. Though the total amount was paid for discharge of the mortgage debt, the petitioners failed to perform their part of contract. It is further stated that the petitioners-defendants 1 and 2 received notices and filed vakalat and sought time for filing written statement. Even after seeking several adjournments for filing written statement, the same was not filed. Therefore, the petitioners herein were set ex-parte on 12-06- 2006 and an ex-parte decree was passed. In execution petition also, notices were served on the petitioners on 13-08-2008 and vakalat was also filed on behalf of the petitioners and time was granted for filing counter and counter was filed on 10-12-2008. In the execution petition, orders were passed directing the petitioners to execute the sale deed. As there was no response, a draft sale deed was directed to be filed and notice of filing of draft sale deed was also given to the petitioners. I have perused the material papers on record. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were set ex-parte after giving sufficient time for filing written statement and the suit was adjourned for more than seven months from time to time, but they have not appeared and filed written statement and, therefore, the petitioners herein were set ex-parte and an ex- parte order was passed. The petitioners after receiving notices in the E.P., filed the present application to condone the delay. Absolutely, there are no valid or sufficient grounds for condoning the delay of 423 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex-parte decree. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the court below had rightly dismissed the said application and I do not find any infirmity, legal or otherwise in the impugned order, so as to call for interference by this Court. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 02-09-2011 Prv