The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Civil Revision Petition Nos.1577 & 1455 of 2010 Dated 30th July, 2010 Common Order: These two Civil Revision Petitions arise out of Orders, dated 07-12-2009, in IA.Nos.178 and 179 of 2009 in OS.Nos.165 and 166 of 2006 respectively, on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Yemmiganur (for short ‘the lower Court’). The petitioner is defendant No.5 in the above- mentioned suits filed by respondent No.1 herein for recovery of certain monies. There were in all seven defendants including the petitioner. The petitioner was set ex parte in both the suits on 12-03-2007. As the petitioner and other defendants failed to appear even thereafter, ex parte decrees were passed in favour of respondent No.1 on 02-07-2007. Respondent No.1 has, thereafter, filed EPs for execution of the decrees. At that stage, the petitioner filed IAs referred to above in the two suits for condonation of delay of 608 day in each of the cases in filing the applications for setting aside the ex parte decrees. The said applications having been dismissed, the petitioner filed the present Civil Revision Petitions. In support of his applications, the petitioner inter alia stated in his affidavit that respondent Nos.3 to 7 are his brothers and Managing partners of respondent No.2-firm; that the said respondents have represented to him that they will look after the suit proceedings and that therefore, he was under the impression that they will contest the matter on behalf of respondent No.2- firm. He has further averred that as respondent Nos.3 to 7 failed to contest the matters, ex parte decrees were passed on 02-07-2007 and that the petitioner came to know about the said fact only after receipt of notices in the EPs. Having considered the said explanation, the lower Court has observed that from the record, it is seen that the petitioner was set ex parte on 19-02-2007 and that even thereafter, for about 2 to 3 months, the other defendants have contested the suits and that the petitioner failed to offer reasonable explanation to condone the huge delay of 608 days. In my opinion, the petitioner failed to offer convincing reasons for condoning a long delay of 608 days. The explanation offered by the petitioner amply reflects negligence on his part. Being one of the defendants, he should have been diligent in contesting the cases without leaving the said task to the other partners. At any rate, it is not possible to accept the plea of the petitioner that being one of the partners of the firm and a defendant to the suits, he would not have had the knowledge of passing of the ex parte decrees for nearly 2 years. This plea itself speaks volumes of the petitioner’s lack of diligence in prosecuting the cases. For the above-mentioned reasons, I do not find any reasons to interfere with Orders, dated 07-12-2009, in IA.Nos.178 and 179 of 2009 in OS.Nos.165 and 166 of 2006 respectively, of the Court below. The Civil Revision Petitions are accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Civil Revision Petitions, CMP.Nos.2112 and 1964 of 2010 in CRP.Nos.1577 and 1455 of 2010 respectively, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J Dated 30th July, 2010 lur