IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE 11th DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1782 to 1784 of 2011 Between: P.Subba Rao … Petitioner And K.Narayana Rao and others … Respondents This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1782 to 1784 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: - These revisions are filed by the petitioner/defendant aggrieved by the orders of the Junior Civil Judge, Kaikalur in I.A.Nos.696, 698 and 700 of 2010 in O.S.Nos.213, 215 and 220 of 2003, dated 21.04.2011, to condone the delay of 676 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree in the suit, dated 24.02.2009, and permit him to contest the suit. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition to condone the delay it is stated that plaintiff No.1/father of respondent Nos.4 to 7 is no more and respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed the suit against the petitioner for possession of the plaint schedule property after evicting the petitioner and for future profits from the date of the suit till the delivery of the property. After receipt of the summons, himself and other persons who are the defendants in the other suits filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3/plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 approached respondent Nos.1 to 3/plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 and questioned as to why they have filed the above suit unnecessarily, to which they stated in order to perfect their right over the property, which was already in their possession, they filed the case and they promised that they would not take any further proceedings against them. Since the respondents/plaintiffs promised in the presence of elders in the village and believing their promise the petitioner and others kept quiet and not contested the suit. Until they received the notice in E.A.No.165 of 2007 filed by respondent Nos.2 to 7 seeking to implead as legal representatives of plaintiff No.1, who passed away on 23.01.2010, they are not aware of the ex parte decree. Therefore, the delay in filing the application for setting aside the ex parte decree is to be set aside. Except the ipsi dixit statement of the petitioner/defendant that on receipt of the suit summons they approached the plaintiffs and plaintiffs promising that they will not take any further proceedings, no other cause is shown for condoning the delay. Even assuming for a moment that the respondents/plaintiffs promised that they would not take any further proceedings in the presence of the village elders, no such village elder was examined to substantiate the plea taken by the petitioner. The learned trial court also observed that on allowing E.A.No.165 of 2010 and numbering the E.P., the present application is filed. Even when the petitioner received the notice in E.A.No.165 of 2010, he has not approached the court and filed a petition to set aside the ex parte decree. Only after allowing the E.A., the present application is filed for condoning the delay. Since the reasons mentioned for condoning the delay hardly constitute sufficient cause, the discretion exercised by the lower court in refusing to condone the delay, does not suffer from any manifest illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this court. The Civil Revision Petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J 11.11.2011 lmv HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1782 to 1784 of 2011 11.11.2011 lmv