Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Civil Revision Petition No.1698 of 2011 Dated 29th July, 2011 Between: Pendyala Koteshwar Rao …Petitioner And Banduru Govindamma and another. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri M.C.Acharyulu Counsel for respondent No.1 : Sri M.Rajamalla Reddy Counsel for respondent No.2 : None appeared The Court made the following: ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition arise out of order, dated 30.03.2011, in E.A.No.160 of 2010 in E.A.No.92 of 2009 in E.P.No.100 of 2007 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Miryalguda. I have heard Sri M.C.Acharyulu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.Rajamalla Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.1. Even though notice has not been served on respondent No.2 since respondent No.1 is the contesting respondent and respondent No.2 is only a proforma party, it is felt unnecessary to await service of notice on respondent No.2 for disposal of this Civil Revision Petition. The petitioner is a third party to the proceedings in E.P.No.100 of 2007 in the Court of the learned Senior Civil Jude, Miryalguda. E.P.No.100 of 2007 has been filed by respondent No.1 who obtained decree for recovery of money against respondent No.2 for execution of the decree by sale of the property belonging to respondent No.2. The petitioner filed E.A.No.92 of 2009 making claim over the said property. The said E.A. was dismissed for default. The petitioner filed an application for setting aside the default order. As there was delay of 40 days in filing the said application, he has filed E.A.No.160 of 2010 for condonation of delay. In his affidavit, filed in support of the application, the petitioner stated that due to his illness he could not attend the Court when the claim petition was posted on 13.09.2010 and that a delay of 40 days occurred in filing the application for restoration of the E.A. The Court below rejected the said application on the ground that the petitioner failed to assign valid reasons for his absence on 13.09.2010 and also for the delay in filing the application for restoring E.A.No.92 of 2009. Even though the petitioner failed to assign cogent reasons for condonation of the delay, considering the fact that the period of delay is not too long and the further fact that he is making a claim over the property which is sought to be sold, it would be appropriate that he is given one more chance to contest the case. However, as the petitioner was not diligent in prosecuting the case, the delay is condoned, subject to the petitioner paying costs of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) to respondent No1. within a period of four weeks from today. On filing proof of such payment to respondent No.1 by the petitioner, E.A.No.160 of 2010 shall stand allowed. In default, the said E.A. shall stand dismissed. Subject to the above directions, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 29th July, 2011 DR