HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3931 of 2010 Between: Madala Venkata Ramana … Petitioner And Manchala Tara Harish … Respondent This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3931 of 2010 ORDER:- This revision under Article 227 of the Constitution, by the defendant is directed against the order of the Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem in I.A.No.1309 of 2009 in O.S.No.224 of 2006, dated 05.07.2010, whereby he dismissed the I.A. filed for condoning the delay of 737 days in filing the petition under Order IX rule 9 CPC for setting aside the ex parte decree passed in the suit, dated 23.07.2007. In the affidavit filed for condoning the delay, the petitioner stated that on receipt of the summons in the suit, he engaged Sri D.Lakshmana Rao, Advocate of Kakinada, who entrusted the matter to another advocate in Tadepalligudem and he is in regular contact with the said Advocate that the matter is being postponed from time to time. Since he has no acquaintance with the procedural laws, he could not file the written statement and the suit was decreed ex parte and till he received the notice in E.P.No.7 of 2009 on 03.08.2009, he was not aware about the ex parte order and the same should be condoned. Except stating that he has no acquaintance with the procedural laws under C.P.C., that written statement has to be filed within a particular time, he has not assigned any reasons for his non-filing the written statement. When he stated that he is contacting his Advocate regularly, it is for him to take steps to get the written statement filed to contest the matter. The reasons assigned hardly constitute sufficient ground to condone the delay of 737 days, which is more than two years, in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree passed in the suit. Therefore, the discretion exercised by the trial court does not suffer from any illegality or committed any irregularity in dismissing the I.A., warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J 3rd September 2010 lmv