THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.727 OF 2007 DATED: 17-06-2010 Between: Vempati Satya Surya Subrahmanya Prakasa Rao. ..... PETITIONER And Alapati China Appa Rao. .....RESPONDENT ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 03-11-2006, in I.A.No.224 of 2006 in O.S.No.107 of 1999 on the file of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), Kovur, wherein the said application filed by the defendant-petitioner herein under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking to condone the delay of 588 days in filing the petition for setting aside the ex parte decree, dated 03-12-2004, was dismissed. 2. None appeared for the petitioner though the matter is posted under the caption ‘for orders’. Heard learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff. Perused the record. 3. Respondent-plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.107 of 1999 for recovery of certain amount due. Petitioner- defendant remained ex parte and an ex parte decree was passed on 03-12-2004. Respondent herein filed E.P.No.7 of 2005 for realization of the decretal amount. In the said E.P. also, it is stated that the petitioner-Judgment-debtor remained ex parte and warrant of arrest was ordered to be issued against him. Thereafter, he filed E.A.No.637 of 2005 seeking to set aside the ex parte order in the E.P. and the same was allowed and the E.P. was posted for enquiry. At that stage, petitioner-judgment-debtor filed an application seeking to set aside the ex parte decree in the suit along with the present application I.A.No.224 of 2006 seeking to condone the delay of 588 days. 4. It is not disputed that the petitioner paid Rs.30,000/- towards the amount due under the decree. The only ground urged in the affidavit filed in support of the application for condoning the delay is that he came to know of the passing of the decree only after he obtained certified copy on 12-07-2006. The said ground is obviously incorrect because he filed E.A.No.637 of 2005 in E.P.No.7 of 2005 for setting aside the ex parte order in the E.P. and the same was allowed and the matter was posted for enquiry to 31-01-2006. Thus, in the year, 2005 itself, he is aware of the passing of a decree against him and the allegation in the affidavit that he came to know of the said fact only on 07-12-2006 is absolutely false. As rightly observed by the trial Court, even after the ex parte order passed in the E.P. was set aside and the E.P. was posted to 31-01-2006, petitioner has not taken any immediate steps for setting aside the ex parte decree in the suit and he filed the application for the said purpose only seven months later on 17-07-2006. There is absolutely no reason or explanation as to the circumstances under which he could not appear before the Court and contest the suit having received the summons as to the delay in filing the application for setting aside the ex parte decree. There is again no explanation as to why he kept quiet for more than six months even after he came to know of the passing of the decree against him when he filed E.A.No.637 of 2005 in E.P.No.7 of 2005. In the absence of any such explanation, the enormous delay of 588 days in filing the petition for setting aside the ex parte decree remains unexplained. There are absolutely no valid or sufficient grounds for condoning the said delay, which is not satisfactorily explained at all. The impugned order, refusing to condone the said delay, does not therefore call for any interference of this Court as the same does not suffer from any legal infirmity or irregularity. 5. In the result, Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 17th June, 2010. Tsy