THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P.No. 6177 of 2009 Dated: 11-02-2010 Between:- Shaik Moulali. ..Petitioner. And Chedella Satyanarayana Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P.No. 6177 of 2009 Oral Order: This revision is against the order dated 12-11-2009 of the learned II-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole rejecting I.A.No. 258 of 2009 in O.S.No. 455 of 2008 filed by the defendant. I.A.No. 258 of 2009 was filed seeking condonation of the delay of 113 days in filing an application to set aside the ex-parte decree dated 25-09-2008. The respondent had filed suit for recovery of the suit amount on the basis of a promissory note dated 17-04-2006. The suit notice was returned with a postal endorsement: ‘addressee refused to take notice and defendant went to Hyderabad’. The Court below set the petitioner ex-parte and an ex-parte decree was passed on 25-09-2008, decreeing the suit for a sum of Rs.91,600- 00. For execution of the decree, the respondent filed E.P.No. 74 of 2009 for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,01,456-00 constituting the decrtal amount plus subsequent interest. At that stage, the application – I.A.No. 258 of 2009 was filed. The only plea in the affidavit accompanying I.A.No. 258 of 2009 filed before the Court below was that the revision petitioner had received a notice from the Court in the execution proceedings; met his counsel and enquired about the proceedings; got knowledge about the decree and suit proceedings only on 22-02- 2009; and after giving Vakalath to his counsel, had fallen ill and could not attend the counsel’s office. No particulars are vouchsafed as to the nature or duration of the illness nor any material marshaled in support of the claim of the ill-health or its duration. The Court below in rejecting the petition found that the delay was 256 days and not of 113 days as pleaded and that there was no explanation let alone a rational explanation for the delay in filing the application seeking setting aside of the ex-parte decree. This Court discerns no error either in the application of law or the exercise of discretion by the Court below, warranting interference in the revision. There are no merits in the revision. The revision is accordingly dismissed after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent Sri M. Subba Reddy. No costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 11-02-2010 Pvks/*