IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3095 of 2009 Between: S.A.Mumtaz ..... PETITIONER AND D.Padmavathi and another .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3095 of 2009 O R D E R: Heard both the counsel. The petitioner herein is the claimant who filed the claim petition in EA.437/2007 in OEP.44/2006 in O.S.124/1999 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati. The 1st respondent herein filed O.S.124/1999 against the 2nd respondent herein for recovery of money and the said suit was decreed on 30.11.2000. It is stated that the schedule property was attached pending the suit. It is not in dispute that the suit was decreed ex parte and the EP filed by the Decree Holder for recovery of decretal amount by selling the attached property was also ordered ex parte by order dated 29.10.2007. It is stated that during course of further sale proceedings, the petitioner herein who is the mother of the Judgment Debtor filed E.A.437/2007 claiming the schedule property stating that she is the absolute owner and possessor of the said property. The Decree Holder disputed the claim of the petitioner herein by way of filing counter. The said claim petition was posted for enquiry on 26.03.2008. It is stated that even after adjourning the matter from time to time for the purpose of recording the evidence of the claim petitioner, there was no response on the part of the claim petitioner, and therefore, it was finally adjourned to 22.07.2008 with a condition that no further adjournment would be allowed. Again the matter was adjourned from 22.07.2008 till 18.09.2008, on which date also the petitioner herein did not attend the Court, and with a view to give one more opportunity, it was finally adjourned to 25.09.2008 on a condition of the claim petitioner paying costs of Rs.200/- and to commence enquiry. Even then there was no response on behalf of the claim petitioner, as such the Court below dismissed the said E.A.437/2007 on 23.10.2008. The petitioner herein filed E.A.214/2008 under Or.21 Rule-106 r/w.Sec.151 CPC seeking to restore the claim petition. The reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit are that she could not attend the Court below due to her suffering from severe health problems and undergoing treatment for thyrocare and other problems in SVIMS Hospital, Tirupati, and there is no willful negligence or wanton delay on her part. The Court below dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the same, this civil revision petition is filed. I have perused the impugned order of the Court below. As rightly pointed out by the Court below, the petitioner herein has not adduced any oral or documentary evidence in support of her contentions that she was suffered from severe ailment and undergone treatment. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner herein is staying in the same E.P.schedule property along with her son, the 2nd respondent/judgment debtor. As seen from the docket proceedings, the petitioner herein always not ready and there was no representation on her behalf from 26.03.2008 to 23.10.2008. I am of the opinion that absolutely there is no diligence on the part of the petitioner herein. I do not see any infirmity legal or otherwise to interfere with the impugned order. After completion of the dictation of the order, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the civil revision petition with a liberty to file a fresh suit for declaration of right and title of the petitioner over the schedule property. Permission is accorded. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with a liberty as sought for. No order as to costs. ___________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 09.04.2010 Dsr