HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.3866 of 2009 Between: Ganta Appala Naidu. ……….Petitioner and Madaka Swaminaidu ………..Respondent HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY C.R.P. No.3866 of 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 29-09-2008 passed in I.A.No.115 of 2008 in O.S.No.134 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Parvathipuram, wherein, the petition, filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 170 days in filing application for setting aside the ex parte decree, dated 03-09-2007 passed in O.S.No.134 of 2007, was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the records. 3. The petitioner herein is the defendant in O.S.No.134 of 2007 filed by the respondent-plaintiff for recovery of Rs.61,375/- said to be due under a pronote, dated 12-06-2006, executed by the petitioner- defendant herein for a sum of Rs.50,000/-. The suit was decreed ex parte on 03-09-2007. The respondent-plaintiff filed E.P.No.97 of 2007 and the property of the petitioner-defendant was put to auction on 01- 02-2008 and a third party viz., Guntreddi Sivannaidu became the highest bidder. The E.P. is at the stage of confirmation of the sale. At that stage, the petitioner-defendant herein filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte decree along with I.A.No.115 of 2008 for condoning the delay of 170 days in filing the said application. 4. The respondent herein filed a counter before the trial Court opposing the petition filed for condonation of delay. 5. By the impugned order dated 29-09-2008, the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge dismissed the said application. Hence, the present revision petition. 6. The suit was decreed ex parte on 03-09-2007. E.P.No.97 of 2007 was filed for execution of the decree for sale of the petitioner- defendant’s property and the auction was also held on 01-02-2008 wherein, third party became the highest bidder. The present application was filed subsequently seeking condonation of delay of 170 days on the ground that the petitioner-defendant was not aware of the passing of the decree as he migrated to Hyderabad four years back in search of livelihood and he returned to the village a week back and came to know about the auction. 7. The evidence, the petitioner-defendant as P.W.1 could not say the particulars as to whether he stayed at Hyderabad and where or under whom he worked. Hence, the petitioner-defendant failed to establish his plea that he migrated to Hyderabad and he returned to the village one year later. The trial Court, while dismissing the petition, held that the plea of lack of knowledge on the part of the petitioner- defendant about passing of the decree cannot be accepted. As the said delay of 170 days in filing the application for setting aside the ex parte decree was not satisfactorily explained by the petitioner, the trial Court has properly exercised discretion in refusing to condone the said delay. 8. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity so as to warrant interference by this Court. 9. In the result the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ 24th September 2009 kvr