THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3093 OF 2000 DATED: 01-02-2010 ORDER: This petition is directed against the order, dated 18-03-2000, in I.A.No.2081 of 1998 in O.S.No.67 of 1993 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rangareddy District, wherein the said application filed by the revision petitioner-4th defendant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 790 days in filing the petition under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner. None appeared for the respondents. Perused the records. 3. Petitioner herein is the 4th defendant in the suit. 1st respondent herein filed the suit against the respondents 2 to 4-D1 to D3 and the petitioner-D4, for recovery of the amounts due. Petitioner herein remained ex parte and an ex parte decree was passed. Petitioner-Decree-holder filed an application for setting aside the ex parte decree under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. As there was a delay of 790 days in filing the said application, I.A.No.2081 of 1998 was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the said delay. 4. In the affidavit filed in support of the said application, it is averred that there was a change of management in the petitioner-company and also the name of the business from ‘M/s Shriram Refrigeration Industries Ltd’ to ‘M/s Tecumseh Products India Limited’ and also that there was a change in the residential address of the advocate, who was engaged to appear for the petitioner-D4 and hence, passing of the ex parte decree was not noticed in time. 5. The affidavit of the said counsel was not filed to show that there was a change in his residential address. Even if there is such a change in the residential address of the counsel, it is not conceivable as to how and why the petitioner-D4 could not watch the proceedings in the suit. The change in the name of the company does not also afford any valid ground for condoning the abnormal delay of 790 days. The very fact that the petitioner-D4 has not bothered to watch the progress of the suit or the result of the suit for such a long period of more than two years only shows that the petitioner-D4 was not diligent. The affidavit filed in support of the application to condone the delay, as rightly observed by the trial Court, does not disclose any justifiable grounds for condoning such a long delay of 790 days. As the said delay has not been satisfactorily explained, the trial Court has rightly refused to condone the same. The impugned order dismissing the said application does not call for any interference of this Court. 6. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 01st February, 2010 Tsy