IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3582 of 2011 Between: P. Ravinder Reddy … Petitioner And G.N. Sadagopal … Respondent Counsel for the petitioner: Sri P. Giri Krishna Counsel for the respondent: Sri Koturi Pavan Kumar This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3582 of 2011 ORDER:- 1) This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order, dated 16.08.2011 in I.A.No.504 of 2011 in O.S.No.95 of 2010, whereunder and whereby the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, dismissed the Interlocutory application filed by the petitioner for condonation of 35 days delay in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree. 2) The petitioner/defendant filed the petition stating that the respondent filed the above suit for eviction of the petitioner from the plaint schedule property, which was decreed ex parte on 14.02.2011 due to non-filing of written statement. The petitioner while visiting his relatives house, met with an accident and hospitalised for several days and that he was shifted to his native place at Warangal District where he underwent Ayurvedic treatment for about three months and as such he could not contact his counsel. When the Court bailiff came to his house, his family members informed the petitioner about the same and immediately he contacted his counsel and came to know about the ex parte decree passed against him due to non-filing of written statement and that due to the above reasons there is a delay of 35 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree. 3) The respondent/plaintiff filed his counter affidavit denying the above averments made by the petitioner and stated that the right of filing of written statement of the petitioner was forfeited on 13.09.2010 and on 30.09.2010, he filed his affidavit of examination in chief, after serving the same to the counsel for the petitioner and thereafter the matter was adjourned from time to time i.e., 08.10.2010, 21.10.2010, 02.11.2010, 09.11.2010, 16.11.2010, 22.11.2010, 29.11.2010, 07.12.2010, 14.12.2010, 24.12.2010, 27.01.2011 and 14.02.2011. This Court had given several opportunities to the petitioner to file his written statement and to cross examine PW.1, but he failed to avail the opportunity. The petitioner being an Advocate, watched the proceedings and attended the Court in another case and that only to drag on the proceedings he adopted delay tactics, without showing any bonafide reason for delay. The petitioner has not filed any documentary proof to show that he met with an accident and that he did not even mention the place and time of accident in his affidavit. The petitioner did not pay the monthly rent and water bill since September, 2009 and did not allow him to inspect his property till today. 4) After hearing both the parties and perusing the material available on record, the trial Court has dismissed the I.A. filed by the respondent for condonation of delay of 35 days. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 5) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since the petitioner met with an accident, he did not give instructions to his Advocate in the trial Court to prepare written statement and that he was not aware of passing of ex parte decree and therefore the delay of 35 days in filing the petition under Order IX Rule 13 CPC may be condoned. 6) On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the trial Court has granted as many as 11 adjournments and given several opportunities to the petitioner prior to passing of the ex parte decree to file his written statement and to cross examine PW-1, but he failed to avail the said opportunity and that delay of 35 days has not been explained except stating that he met with an accident and therefore, the impugned order needs no interference by this Court. 7) There was a delay of 35 days in filing the petition under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex parte decree passed in the suit. If a person is prevented by sufficient cause or reason then it can be said to be just ground for condoning the delay. For the purpose of deciding the issue whether the petitioner has come to the Court with clean hands or not, the adjournments granted by trial Court in the suit can also be looked into. For filing the written statement and also cross examining PW-1, the petitioner has taken 12 adjournments from 19.09.2010 to 14.02.2011. As he did not file the written statement, his right was forfeited on 13.09.2010 and thereafter he has not evinced any interest to prosecute the case diligently. He allowed the suit to be decreed and ultimately the suit was decreed on 14.02.2011. The petitioner has taken almost one year time, but not filed the written statement and also he has not evinced any interest to cross examine PW-1. 8) Now the reason for the delay is that the petitioner met with an accident and was admitted in the hospital as an inpatient for several days and he took Ayurvedic treatment for about three months. Except omnibus statement that he met with an accident and took Ayurvedic treatment, the date of accident, nature of injuries, period of treatment, from whom he has taken treatment, at what place he has taken treatment, whether the injuries deprived of him to approach the Court, are conspicuously silent. The affidavit filed in support of the petition to condone the delay is very vogue and such a bald assertion cannot be accepted. The respondent herein filed a counter affidavit before trial Court stating that the application for condonation of delay is filed to drag on the proceedings. The petitioner has not filed any documentary evidence to show that he met with an accident and that he was residing at Warangal and therefore he could not pay the monthly rent from September, 2009 till date. The petitioner ought to have filed the documents to show that he met with an accident. In spite of taking an objection by the respondent, the petitioner has not filed any documentary proof to show that he was prevented by sufficient cause from approaching the Court by filing a petition to condone the delay. As the delay has not been explained at all, the trial Court has rightly exercised its discretion and dismissed the application to condone the delay of 35 days. If the order under challenge suffers from any illegality or irregularity then only this Court can interfere with such order. Since the order of the trial Court is based upon proper appreciation of the material on record, that order needs no interference by this Court. 9) Learned counsel for the petitioner requested this court to grant a reasonable time to the petitioner for vacating the premises as he has been residing in the said premises since 2009 and that he has to secure an alternative residential accommodation. 10) In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. However, six months’ time is granted to the petitioner to vacate the premises and it is made clear that the arrears of rent payable by the petitioner to the respondent shall be paid within a period of four months from today, failing which the respondent can initiate the execution proceedings. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J Date: 26.08.2011 ES