THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5437 of 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of CPC is filed aggrieved by the order, dated 21-08-2010, passed in I.A.No.220 of 2009 in O.S.No.1044 of 2007, by the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal. The petitioners herein are defendants 2 and 3 in the suit in O.S.No.1044 of 2007. The said suit filed by respondents 1 to 3-plaintiffs for their declaration as legal heirs of one Late Koyyada Veeraswamy was decreed ex-parte on 30-07-2008. The petitioners herein filed an application to set aside the ex-parte decree and also an application in I.A.No.220 of 2009 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 161 days in filing an application to set aside the ex-parte decree. After considering the matter in detail, the trial court dismissed the said I.A.No.220 of 2009 by order, dated 21-08-2010. Aggrieved thereby, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. Mainly, it is the case of the petitioners that they were not served summons in the suit and they came to know about ex-parte decree only on 05-02-2009 and the court below erroneously dismissed the application by observing that the petitioners/defendants 2 and 3 having appeared before the trial court on 13-11-2007, their plea that they had no knowledge of the suit proceedings is false. When the learned counsel for the petitioners has disputed service of summons and appearance before the trial court, this Court has called for the record from the trial court. A perusal of the docket proceedings makes it clear that the petitioners, who are defendants 2 and 3, appeared before the trial court on 13-11-2007 and thereafter, it was adjourned to 28-11- 2007 for settlement of issues. Thus, having appeared before the trial court on 13-11-2007, it is not open for them to plead that they had no knowledge about filing of the suit and ex-parte decree, so as to seek condonation of delay of 161 days in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte decree. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the trial court and the impugned order needs no interference of this Court under Section 115 of CPC. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 05-08-2011 Note: Office to send back the record to the trial court (B/o) Prv