THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5444 of 2002 ORDER: Being aggrieved by the order, dated 15.03.2002, made in I.A.No.395 of 2001 in O.S.No.47 of 1996 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubabad, the present revision is filed. The revision petitioner is defendant No.6 in O.S.No.47 of 1996. The suit was filed for the relief of partition of the suit schedule properties. The petitioner filed I.A.No.395 of 2001 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act with a prayer to condone the delay of 453 days in filing the petition under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. to set aside the ex parte preliminary decree passed against him in the suit. The trial Court in its order, dated 15.03.2002, dismissed the petition on the ground that the petitioner failed to explain the delay and that there are no valid reasons in the affidavit filed by him. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition is filed. Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the trial Court is sustainable? It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that at the time the suit was filed, the petitioner was a minor represented by his mother-defendant No.3 and thereafter, he attained the age of majority and that though the plaintiffs had taken steps for discharging of his guardian, they did not take steps to serve notice on him, that his mother-defendant No.3 was also set ex parte and the plaintiffs have suppressed all the material facts and played fraud and the delay in filing the petition was due to change of Advocate as his first Advocate did not take steps when the petition under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. was returned. Admittedly, the suit was filed when the petitioner No.6 was minor and was under the care and guardianship of his mother-defendant No.3. As seen from the record, defendant No.3 was set ex parte. During the course of minority, petitioner was also represented through guardian and admittedly, after attaining the majority of the petitioner, the plaintiffs have taken steps for discharging his guardian. As per the plaint in the suit, the petitioner was shown as minor and defendant No.3 is his mother and guardian along with his two other brothers. Though the suit was filed in the year 1990, it was decreed on 20.06.1998. As per the judgment, dated 20.06.1998, originally, the suit was filed in the Court of the Principal Sub-Court, Warangal being O.S.No.125 of 1990. Thereafter, it was transferred to the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubabad and the same was renumbered as O.S.No.47 of 1996. The plaintiffs filed the suit against the defendants for partition of the suit schedule properties and put them in one-fourth share of the same. In the suit, defendant Nos.1, 2 and 9 filed separate written statements. Defendant Nos.8 and 10 filed a memo adopting the written statement filed by defendant Nos.1, 2 and 9. On behalf of the plaintiffs, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and no documents were marked. After due trial and after giving an opportunity to the parties in the suit, the trial Court pronounced the judgment on 20.06.1998. The decree was not an ex parte decree and the same was after due contest by the parties in the suit. Therefore, the plea of the petitioner that he is not aware of the suit proceedings before the trial Court cannot be accepted in any view of the matter. The petitioner also failed to explain the day-to-day delay in filing the petition. The trial Court also discussed the conduct of the petitioner while dismissing the petition. In any view of the matter, I see no grounds to differ with the finding of the trial Court. The petitioner is at liberty to take appropriate steps, if he is so otherwise entitled to. With the above observation, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ K.S.APPA RAO,J Dt:21.10.2011 kdl