THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1212 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioner/defendant, who suffered ex parte decree, filed this revision petition against the order dated 10.12.2009 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, (FTC) Rajahmundry, in I.A.No.593 of 2009 in O.S.No.101 of 2005, filed for condonation of delay of 710 days in filing the petition under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. Indisputably on passing the ex parte order dated 20.06.2005 in the suit, the respondent/decree holder filed E.P.No.288 of 2007 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry for recovery of decree debt by way of arrest. Since the petitioner/JDR herein received the summons and kept quite, he was set ex parte. Thereafter, the lower Court permitted him to contest the E.P., by setting aside the ex parte order. Ultimately, the E.P. was allowed on contest on 2.04.2009 holding that though the petitioner had sufficient means to discharge the decree debt he was intentionally not paying the same, and hence arrest warrant was issued against him. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed C.R.P.No.3084 of 2009 in which this Court by the interim order dated 10.07.2009 directed the petitioner to deposit half of the decretal amount within the stipulated period. It was brought to the notice of this Court that later the petitioner filed the impugned I.A.No.593 of 2009 for condoning delay of 710 days in filing the petition under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. Thereafter the said revision was disposed of by this Court on 30.10.2009 on condition that the petitioner depositing further sum of Rs.25,000/- within a period of four weeks and undertaking to deposit the balance amount subject to the result in the I.A.S.Rs pending before the lower Court within a period of two months from the date of disposal of the said I.A.S.Rs the petitioner shall not be arrested and the I.A.S.Rs were directed to be disposed of within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. The reasons assigned by the petitioner are that he was not advised by his counsel to file a petition for setting aside the ex parte decree. But the petitioner has knowledge about the ex parte decree passed on 23.02.2007 when he received the notice in E.P.No.288 of 2007. He put up appearance to contest the E.P. proceedings and suffered an order in the said E.P., which was allowed on 2.12.2009, and only on allowing the E.P., I.A. under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. was filed in June 2009, which clearly discloses that the petitioner is not diligent in prosecuting the appeal and failed to explain sufficient reasons for not filing the application immediately on his coming to know of the ex parte order. Unless the counsel, who advised the petitioner to file the petition, sworn the affidavit filed along with I.A. to the said effect, the reasons assigned by the petitioner for not filing the I.A. under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C., do not constitute sufficient cause. Therefore, the discretion exercised by the lower Court in refusing to condone the delay does not suffer from any illegality in exercise of jurisdiction warranting interference of this Court. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ (A. GOPAL REDDY, J.) 9th April, 2010 Js.