THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.673 of 2011 Dated:17.06.2011 Between: Moorpa Muniraja, S/o.Rasaiah. …Petitioners and Bethu Raghupathi, And others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.673 of 2011 ORDER: The second defendant in O.S.No.76 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Puttur, is the petitioner in this civil revision petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The first respondent filed the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 22.12.2003. The same was decreed on 15.02.2006. About two years thereafter, the petitioner filed Interlocutory Application to set aside the ex parte decree. He also filed I.A.No.373 of 2007 to condone the delay of 601 days. The same was dismissed by the impugned order dated 17.07.2010. Counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that as there was a threat from the creditors of the petitioner against whom he had filed I.P.No.8 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Puttur, petitioner was forced to stay away from the place and could not be present. As he was denied opportunity to contest the suit he should be given an opportunity. This Court has perused the affidavit accompanying I.A.No.373 of 2007. The affidavit averment is that the petitioner filed I.P.No.8 of 2004, that there was a threat from the creditors, that he was forced to stay away and could not proceed with the suit and when he came to know about the ex parte decree he filed the application. Even the submissions are not properly made. When the petitioner came to know about the ex parte decree, and when there was a threat from the creditors why he did not give complaint to the Police? Even if he was not able to attend the Court due to threat why the Advocate appearing for him in the Court below did not place the necessary factual position for seeking adjournment? No explanation is given to these relevant questions. The trial Court, therefore, correctly considered the issue and dismissed the interlocutory application. Further, the Counsel for the first respondent submits that I.P was also dismissed and that the decree in O.S.No.76 of 2004 was duly executed by execution of the sale deed by the Court and there is delivery of possession. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 17.06.2011 vs