THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRP No.5827/2008 Date of Order: 21-4-2011 Between: 1. Syed Kamal Quadri and another ..Petitioners and Tahera Begum ..Respondent The Court made the following Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRP No.5827/2008 Oral order: The petitioners/defendants 3 and 4 filed this revision petition aggrieved by the dismissal order dt.30-9-2008 passed in IA No.314/2002 in OS No.4/1999 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Nuzvid. The first respondent/plaintiff instituted the suit for declaration of her title to the plaint “A” & “B” schedule properties and for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, and men from ever interfering with the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties in any manner whatsoever, alternatively, for specific performance of the contract in respect of 1/3rd share of the defendants 1 and 2 in plaint “B” schedule property. On decreeing the suit ex parte on 6-7- 2000, petition under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was filed by defendants 3 and 4 for setting aside the ex parte decree passed against them. Since there is a delay of 618 days in filing the set-aside petition, the present IA No.314/2002 has been filed by the defendants 3 and 4 for condonation of delay of 618 days in filing set-aside petition stating that the first plaintiff is none other than the sister-in-law of D-3 and her power of attorney holder is his elder brother; that the plaintiff filed the suit for injunction based on unregistered document, in which they entered appearance; that they engaged Pasyakarulu, advocate to defend their case; that due to the illness of the wife of D-3, he took her to various hospitals and ultimately she died in Apollo Hospital, Madras on 9-1-1999; that due to the death of his wife, D-3 could not concentrate on any of his affairs including his business and could not contact his advocate; that after one year he contacted his advocate and his advocate obtained signatures on three papers without informing that an ex parte decree was passed against him; and as the ex parte decree was passed due to the negligence of the advocate, they should not suffer irreparably. On contest made by the plaintiff, delay condonation petition was dismissed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondent No.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the advocate engaged by the petitioners in the trial court has not informed the petitioner about the ex parte decree passed against them. The suit filed by the plaintiff was transferred to Junior Civil Judge, Nuzvid as per the orders passed in OP No.337/198, which was filed by the plaintiff, where it was numbered as OS No.4/99 and posted to 4-2-1999. Though summons were received on 24-7-1999, the defendants 3 and 4 did no present before the trial court on 4-8-1999 when the matter was called. After defendants 3 and 4 set them ex parte, the suit was posted for plaintiff’s side evidence several times. After adducing plaintiff’s evidence, a decree was passed in her favour on 6-7-2000. Having kept quiet all these days, they came with the present petition with false allegations. The reasons mentioned by the petitioners for condonation of delay have not been sufficiently explained and reasons can hardly sufficient to condone the delay. The discretion exercised by the trial court in dismissing delay condonation petition does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this court. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. Dt.21-4-2011 kmr