THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3344 of 2010 DATE: 11th APRIL, 2011 Between: Nekkalapu Prakasha Rao … Petitioner A n d Jakkam Satyanarayana … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3344 of 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is moved by the defendant in the suit who filed I.A.No.1999 of 2009 in O.S.No.167 of 2005, instituted by the respondent-plaintiff, for recovery of certain money on the foot of a promissory note. I.A.No.1999 of 2009 has been taken out seeking condonation of delay of 1555 days from 19-08-2005 up to 23-11-2009, in moving an application seeking to set aside an ex parte decree passed on 19-07-2005. In the affidavit filed in support of the said interlocutory application, the solitary reason assigned by the petitioner herein is that he came to know about the ex parte decree when he received notice in E.P.No.109 of 2009 and hence, the delay has occurred in instituting proceedings for securing the ex parte decree to be set aside. No details are furnished as to the date on which he received the notice in the E.P and there is no mention of the facts as to how long he was available at his old address and when he moved out of that address, etc. In the absence of any such factual details, the application did not inspire much of a confidence in the mind of the Court about its bona fides and genuineness. Therefore, the Court felt constrained not to condone such an extraordinary delay of 1555 days. Heard Sri. M. Surendar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, who vehemently contended that an opportunity should have been provided by the Civil Court for the petitioner herein to contest the case all the more as he has enclosed the written statement in the suit to the application moved by him for setting aside the ex parte decree. I am not impressed by the contentions canvassed by the petitioner, for, sans the necessary details of facts, an impression has been left behind by the petitioner that he tried to avoid as long as possible, the plaintiff from securing a decree in his favour. In fact, the petitioner herein has not attempted to show his bona fides by at least offering to deposit in the Court the principal amount so that the Court, perhaps, would have considered his application. I, therefore, do not find any illegality in the exercise carried out by the Court below for me to revise the order passed in I.A.No.1999 of 2009 in O.S.No.167 of 2005. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, but however, without costs. ________________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J 11th April, 2011 KSM/KSLD