HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. SHANKAR NARAYANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1605 OF 2009 ORDER: Questioning the order, dated 11.02.2009, passed in I.A. No.1210 of 2008 in O.P. No.99 of 2006, by the learned I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, whereby and where-under the request to condone the delay of 654 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree passed on 10.01.2007 was rejected dismissing the application, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 2. Heard Smt. S.A.V. Ratnam, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, and Sri E. Venkata Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the learned counsel on record did not inform the revision petitioner, who is respondent No.2 in O.P. No.9 of 2006, the dates of adjournments in the O.P. and even did not come into contact when the revision petitioner tried to contact him and he has gone Abroad, and that was the reason the revision petitioner could not know about the stage of proceedings and only when he received the notice in execution petition, he verified and found that his counsel reported no instructions and, therefore, delay occurred, which was not intentional nor deliberate. ASN,J C.R.P. No.1605 OF 2009 2 i) The learned counsel also would submit that when no instructions were reported by the advocate, the Court below ought to have issued notice to the revision petitioner and then proceeded with disposal of the O.P. 4. The Court below referred to the answers given by the revision petitioner in his cross-examination as PW.1 and finding that the revision petitioner has categorically admitted that he handed over the file and no objection Vakalat to the present counsel, Sri T. Venugopal, during the proceedings in O.P., and despite the same, the revision petitioner stating that he did not receive the notice cannot be believed, and then observing that the revision petitioner was watching every stage of the proceeding, and despite filing the counter in O.P. as well as in E.P., he did not come forward at any time to resist the decree till the arrest warrant was issued, would clearly reveal that there is any sufficient and cogent reason for non-prosecuting the matter except a bald statement that he has no knowledge about the case till he received notice in E.P. and noting that the delay is abnormal and that itself would suggest that the revision petitioner was watching the proceedings at every stage and intentionally avoided to proceed, dismissed the application. 5. Turning to whether there is any legal infirmity in the order passed by the Court below warranting interference, the Court below has referred to the details meticulously with reference to the sequence ASN,J C.R.P. No.1605 OF 2009 3 of events and the dates. The only reason assigned by the revision petitioner is that there was no contact between himself and the advocate on record. Though, he tried to contact the advocate on record, he could not succeed is certainly not a ground to view that there is sufficient cause to condone the delay. Though, he stepped into witness box and examined himself as PW.1, but no convincing material is forthcoming in his evidence to condone the huge delay of 654 days, as no sufficient cause is to be found. Thus, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Court below warranting interference. There is no merit in the present revision. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. In the circumstances, there is no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the revision, stand closed. ___________________________ A. SHANKAR NARAYANA, J June 12, 2018. Mgr