THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH C.R.P.No.4256 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner herein is the defendant in the suit in O.S.No.33 of 2005 filed by the respondent herein on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Gurazala, for recovery of money. It is stated that after receipt of summons in the suit, written statement was not filed and, therefore, the matter was adjourned for filing written statement on payment of costs of Rs.100/- and posted the matter on 27-04-2006. On 27-04-2006, as the costs were not paid and written statement was not filed, the defendant was set ex-parte and posted the matter for plaintiff’s evidence and that the plaintiff was examined as PW.1 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-3 and the trial court vide its judgment and decree, dated 23-06-2006, decreed the suit. The petitioner kept quiet for a period of more than two years and, thereafter, filed an application to set aside the ex-parte decree along with I.A.No.898 of 2008 in O.S.No.33 of 2005 to condone the delay of two years, two months and 15 days in filing the application to set aside the ex- parte decree. The court below vide its common order, dated 17-08-2001, dismissed both I.A.No.898 of 2008 as well as I.A.No. 899 of 2008. Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.898 of 2008, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. In the affidavit filed in support of the said application, the petitioner stated that it could not file written statement before the trial court, as the documents were given to Durgi Police in connection with other case in respect of business in Palanadu area and Ex.A-1-voucher is a fabricated one. A counter was filed before the court below opposing the said allegations stating that the petitioner having engaged an advocate took time for filing written statement and it has not filed any written statement and that after passing the decree, the present application is filed. Therefore, the application is liable to be dismissed. Though some reasons are sought to be explained, there cannot be any justification in not filing written statement for a period of more than one year. Therefore, the reasons stated in the affidavit explaining the said inordinate delay cannot constitute sufficient cause to condone the delay. 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 as to call for interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 29-09-2011 Prv