THE HONOURABLE Smt. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI Civil Revision Petition No.3391 of 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order of the learned X Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in I.A. No.157 of 2010 in O.S. No.6864 of 2007. The petitioner is the judgment debtor and the respondent is the decree holder. The petitioner filed the aforesaid I.A. seeking to condone the delay in filing the petition to set aside the ex-parte decree dated 18.9.2008 made in O.S. No. 6864 of 2007. In the affidavit filed in support of the said I.A., the petitioner has stated that as he was suffering from Hypertension, diabetics and Hemiplegia since 12.2.2007 and as he also suffered a paralytic stroke, the doctor advised him to take rest. Therefore, he got shifted from Hyderabad to Gulbarga, which is his son’s place and he could not contest the said suit and the said suit was decreed ex-parte. The petitioner further stated that the respondent filed another suit in O.S. No.5612 of 2007 for recovery of possession and damages for use and occupation of the premises. However, after receiving notices in the E.P., he came to know about the ex-parte decree and filed the present I.A. seeking to set aside the said order. The trial Court, having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material on record, dismissed the said application through the impugned order. Hence, the present revision. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. Before the trial Court, the petitioner filed a Medical Certificate to show that he was advised bed rest for the period from 12.2.2007 to 25.1.2010. However, on a perusal of the said Certificate, the trial Court found that it did not disclose that the petitioner was advised bed rest for a period of three years on account of the fact that he was suffering from hypertension and diabetics. The trial Court also found that the petitioner having received the summons in the suit, remained absent on 28.7.2008 and filed the present I.A. nearly after a period of three years after receiving notices in the E.P. and also failed to explain the delay properly. On that ground, it dismissed the I.A. The petitioner except stating that he was suffering from hypertension and diabetics and was advised bed rest for a period of three years, did not offer any other plausible reason for condoning the abnormal delay. In the circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. The revision petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. ___________________ T.MEENA KUMARI,J Date:13th August, 2010 pnb