THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3605 OF 2011 ORDER : 1. The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order 07.07.2011 in E.A. No.319 of 2010 in E.A. No.501 of 2004 in E.P. No.97 of 2000 in O.S. No.2015 of 1998 on the file of the IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone delay of 1197 days in filing petition to restore E.A. No.501 of 2004 to its file, was dismissed. 2. The first respondent herein filed Original Suit No.2015 of 1998 against the second respondent for recovery of money. The suit was decreed. Thereafter, he filed Execution Petition No.97 of 2000 for realization of the decreetal amount by way of attachment and sale of the schedule property mentioned therein. After sale of the property, the petitioners/claimants filed Execution Application No.501 of 2004 claiming independent right over the schedule property and the same was dismissed by the court below on 11.06.2007 for non-compliance of the conditional order 27.04.2007. Thereafter, the petitioners filed Execution Application No.319 of 2010 to condone delay of 1197 days in filing the petition to restore the claim petition to file, which was dismissed vide the impugned order. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. 4. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners were not having knowledge about the dismissal of the petition and that compromise talks were going on between the claim petitioners and the decree holder, and during such talks, an assurance was given by mother of the decree holder, the petitioners could not pursue the matter. The said contention cannot be accepted because once the property was already sold in execution of the decree, the decree holder or his mother will have no interest in the property. It is not the case of the petitioners that the auction purchaser assured him that no steps would be taken in pursuance of the auction. Therefore, the petitioners have not at all explained the abnormal delay of 1197 days in filing the petition to set aside the dismissal order dated 11.06.2007. Further, it is the duty and responsibility of the petitioners to know the stage of the case from his advocate. Having filed an application claiming the property sold in execution of a decree, the claimants must diligently prosecute the case. They have no evinced any interest to pursue their claim application. Nearly four long years, they kept quiet and filed the present application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The contention that they have no knowledge about the dismissal of the execution application filed by them, is wholly devoid of merit and untenable. Considering these aspects, the court below rightly dismissed the petition and the said order needs no interference by this Court. 5. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. --------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 27.08.2011 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3605 OF 2011 27.08.2011 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3605 OF 2011 DATED 27.08.2011 Between: Lingamma & others …Petitioners And K.Jyoti Prasad & another …Respondents