HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY C.R.P.No.460 of 2011 Date : 13-6-2011 Between: Tumula Mahalakshmamma .. Petitioner And Karri Krishnamma .. Respondent Counsel for petitioner : Sri K.Purushotham Counsel for respondent : -- The Court made the following: ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order dated 9- 12-2010 in I.A.No.583/209 in O.S.No.114/2005 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Palakonda whereby he has dismissed I.A.No.583/2009 filed by the petitioner seeking condonation of delay of 244 days in filing petition for setting aside exparte decree dated 11-11-2008. I have heard Sri K.Purushotham, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The respondent filed O.S.No.114/2005 for recovery of certain amounts on the foot of a promissory note. On 11-11- 2008, an exparte decree was passed against the petitioner. The respondent has filed E.P.No.18/2009 for execution of the said exparte decree. At this stage, the petitioner filed I.A.No.583/2009 for condonation of delay of 244 days in filing the application for setting aside the exparte decree. The respondent filed a counter-affidavit resisting the said application. The court below after considering the rival pleadings and material on record, dismissed the said application. At the hearing Sri K.Purushotham, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the court below has committed a serious error in decreeing the suit exparte without issuing notice to the petitioner as her counsel has reported no instructions. In support of his submission, the learned counsel placed reliance on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Malkiat Singh and another Vs. Joginder Singh and others [1]. A perusal of the order under Revision shows that on an earlier occasion, i.e., on 30-11-2005, the petitioner was set exparte. On the application filed by her for setting aside the exparte order, the same was set-aside. On 23-1-2008 affidavit of PW-1 in lieu of her chief-examination was filed and the case was adjourned later to 3-6-2008, on which date, affidavits of P.Ws.2 and 3 in lieu of their chief- examination were also filed. The petitioner failed to cross- examine PWs.1 to 3 and the court below has treated the cross-examination as “Nil”. The case was again posted for the evidence of the petitioner on 12-6-2008. At that stage, the petitioner filed I.A.No.345/2008 under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for recalling PWs.1 to 3. The said petition was posted to 26-8-2008 for enquiry, but there was no representation for the petitioner. The court below while dismissing the said petition on 29-8-2008 again posted the case for the evidence of the petitioner. As the petitioner was again unrepresented on that day, evidence on her side was closed and the suit was posted for Judgment on 11-11-2008. On that day also, there was no appearance for the petitioner and therefore the suit was decreed exparte. On the basis of the above facts, the court below has come to the conclusion that the petitioner had full knowledge of the stages of the case and that the reasons adduced by the petitioner for condonation of huge delay of 244 days were not convincing. From the facts noted above, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has not shown any diligence in prosecuting her case and her conduct in pursuing the case was totally unsatisfactory. The Judgment of the Supreme Court in Malkiat Singh (1-supra) turns on its own facts and therefore it has no application to the present case. For the above mentioned reasons, I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the court below. The Civil Revision Petition is therefore dismissed. ________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 13-6-2011 AM [1] JT 1997(9) SCC 642