IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5445 OF 2007 BETWEEN Gokullamma. …PETITIONER AND B. Sudhakar Reddy and others. …RESPONDENTS Counsel for the petitioner: MR. P.S.P. SURESH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: MR. S.V. MUNI REDDY FOR R1 to R3 The Court made the following: - ORDER: Petitioner is the fourth defendant in O.S.No.185 of 1991. The said suit is filed by the respondents for perpetual injunction and the same was decreed ex parte by the trial Court on 25.06.1998 on account of non-apperance by the defendants and earlier thereto on 17.04.1998 also there was no representation on behalf of the defendants, hence they were set ex parte. The said order dated 25.06.1998 is sought to be set aside by filing I.A.No.616 of 1998 by defendants 3 and 4. The said application was rejected by the trial Court under order dated 03.12.2001 and the said order was confirmed by the learned District Judge, Chittoor in CMA.No.14 of 2002 dated 11.10.2007. The present revision is preferred questioning the said order. 2. This Court admitted the revision petition on 12.02.2008 but there is no interim order in operation for all these years. 3. Heard both sides. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the decree in question is one for perpetual injunction and only the petitioner is interested in prosecuting the revision petition as other defendants are either no more or have not joined the petitioner. 5. The decree came to be passed ex parte against the defendants, as they were already set ex parte on 17.04.1998 and the impugned order shows that there was no explanation from the defendants for their absence on 17.04.2008, 24.06.2008 and 25.062008. On account of the same, the trial Court has declined to set aside the ex parte decree. The lower appellate Court also examined the matter and confirmed the said order. 6. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the third defendant was an old aged lady of 76 years on the date of application and the petitioner herein was depending on her for prosecuting the suit, however, the affidavit filed in support of the IA is produced before this Court but the same only contains the reasons for non-appearance of the third respondent and nothing is stated about the absence of the petitioner herein, who is fourth defendant. Since the suit is of 1991 and decree of 25.06.1998, only at the instance of the petitioner – fourth defendant, I am not satisfied with the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. As there was no stay, the decree continued to operate and if at this distance of time the decree is set aside, respondents/plaintiffs would be put to serious prejudice. I am, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J December 16, 2010 DSK