THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH C.R.P.NO.3837 OF 2009 O R D E R Heard both the counsel. 2. Aggrieved by the order and decree dated 28.07.2009 passed by the court of Senior Civil Judge, Kamareddy in I.A.No.77/2008 in O.S.No.29/2007 in rejecting to condone the delay of 113 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree dated 6.11.2007, the defendant in the suit filed the present revision. 3. The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 27.11.2004 in respect of the RCC house bearing no.4-5-264, admeasuring 250 sq. yards with specific boundaries situate at Islampur, Kamareddy town, Nizamabad District. 4. The case of the defendant is that no summons were served on him and that the cause title in the suit was shown with wrong address and that he has shifted his residence to Hyderabad from Kamareddy for the purpose of education of his children and that now he is residing at H.No.18-7-426/57/3, Nasheman Nagar, Talabkatta, Chandrayangutta, Hyderabad for the past four years and that the notice which is said to have been served, was to the address shown in the cause title i.e., H.No.18-1-213/6/5, Talabkatta beside Faiyaze (Star Cable), Hyderabad, where he never resided and that the signature on the acknowledgement, does not belong to him and that it is forged and, that as soon as he came to know about the passing of the ex parte decree, he filed a petition to set aside the same and as there was delay of 113 days, he filed the present I.A. The defendant also filed copies of election identity card and the residential proof issued by the revenue authorities. 5. On the other hand, the case of the plaintiff while denying the averments made in the petition to condone the delay is that that the summons were served on the defendant and as he did not appear before the court below, he was decreed ex part and that as the defendant did not show sufficient cause, the delay cannot be condoned. 6. The court below finding that as the defendant did not appear though the summons were served and that he did not show sufficient cause for condoning the delay, dismissed the I.A. Hence, the present revision. 7. Both the counsel appearing for the parties, reiterated the above averments made in their respective petitions. 8. From the material available on record, it could be seen that the court below, based on the material available on record found that the summons were served on the defendant through registered post on 26.9.2007. Though the defendant denied the service of notice stating that the signature on the acknowledgement is forged, and that he is residing at the address shown by him in the petition,for the past four years, he did not lead any tangible evidence in support of his case, except the filing copies of election identity card and the residential certificate. Further, the counsel for the respondent/plaintiff also produced before this court the certified copy of acknowledge received by the defendant in the execution petition in E.P.No.3/2008 in O.S.No.29/2007. From this document, it is noticed that the service of notice in the E.P. on the defendant, is to the address given in the cause title of the suit. Therefore, the plea taken by the defendant that summons in the suit was not served on him, is found to be false. Therefore, in these circumstances, as the defendant failed to show any sufficient cause for condoning the delay, the court below rightly dismissed the I.A. and I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order and accordingly the revision is devoid of any merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the revision is dismissed. No costs. AVS ----------------------------------- 17—09— 2009