IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.4716 OF 2011 Between: Kopuri Ramesh …Petitioner A n d Kota Nagarattamma and others ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.4716 OF 2011 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order 14.11.2011 in I.A.No.1403 of 2011 in I.A.No.845 of 2001 in O.S.No.112 of 1973, on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tenali, wherein the application filed by the petitioner herein, under Order IX Rule 7 CPC for setting aside the ex parte dated 24.04.2002 passed against him, was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner herein, who was one of the plaintiffs, filed the suit O.S.No.112 of 1973. The said suit was decreed. The matter ultimately reached the Apex Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court by order dated 15.04.2002 ordered status quo of all proceedings to be maintained. Meanwhile, the respondents/defendants filed I.A.No.845 of 2001 under Section 144 CPC for restitution. Another application was also filed to bring the legal representatives of one of the deceased plaintiffs on record. The petitioner herein was set ex parte in I.A.No.845 of 2001 on 24.04.2002. Subsequently, it is stated that C.A.No.4594 of 2003 was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 31.08.2010 and the said order was received by the trial Court on 29.10.2010. Thereafter, further proceedings in I.A.No.845 of 2001 are taken up. It is stated that the enquiry in I.A.No.845 of 2001 has since been completed and the matter has reached the stage of judgment. At that stage, it appears one of the parties filed an application for re-opening the matter for making further submissions. The petitioner then filed I.A.No.1403 of 2011 under Order IX Rule 7 CPC for setting aside the ex parte order dated 24.04.2022. The respondents/defendants filed a counter opposing the same. The trial Court, by the impugned order, dismissed the said application, observing that the petitioner has not furnished any cogent reasons for his non-appearance for the last 11 years. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition is filed. 4. Admittedly, the petitioner was served with notice in I.A.No.845 of 2001 and he has not filed any counter, though the other plaintiffs have been contesting the said matter. Now, about 11 years after filing of I.A.No.845 of 2001 the petitioner has filed the present application for setting aside the ex parte order dated 24.04.2002. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as the order of status quo passed by the Supreme Court was in force, the petitioner has not filed application all these years. 5. It is not disputed that the petitioner was set ex parte even prior to the receipt of order of the status quo granted by the Supreme Court. Even though the said order of status quo was vacated with the dismissal of C.A.No.4594 of 2003 on 31.08.2010, the petitioner has not filed the present application immediately thereafter within a reasonable time and the same was filed about one year later in August, 2011. The affidavit filed in support of the application does not disclose any valid or justifiable reasons for such long delay or inaction on the part of the petitioner. Further, in the counter filed by the petitioner I.A.No.845 of 2001 it is stated that he and other family members have sold away the schedule property to one Bhavirisetty Venkata Satyanarayana under a registered sale deed dated 11.10.1999 for valid consideration who was already a tenant of the schedule shop since long time. Thus, even according to the petitioner, the property was already sold by him. 6. Be that as it may, as there are no valid or justifiable grounds for setting aside the ex parte order dated 24.04.2002 at this length of time, it is held that the impugned order does not call for any interference. However, as it is stated that the matter is coming up for hearing further arguments before the trial Court, the petitioner is permitted to make his submissions, if any, and participate in the matter before the trial Court. 7. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed, with liberty as stated above. Interim stay granted earlier stands vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 14th December, 2011 Lrkm.