THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Revision Petition No.4565 of 2008 Date: 13-8-2010 Between Yelamanchili Suresh … Petitioner/Defendant No.1 and I.Kumaraswamy Reddy … Respondent/Plaintiff THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Revision Petition No.4565 of 2008 Oral Order: Heard Sri V.V.L.N.Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 18-8-2008 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandigama, Krishna district in dismissing the application I.A.No.98 of 2008 in O.S.No.26 of 2003 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking to condone the delay of 1216 days in filing the application under Order IX, Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 30-10-2003. 3. The petitioner herein is defendant No.1 and the respondent is the plaintiff in the suit before the trial Court. The suit was filed for recovery of money on the strength of a promissory note. The defendant was set ex parte for his abstinence on the date of hearing fixed by the trial Court. Subsequently, an ex parte decree also was passed. Pursuant thereto, E.P.No.65 of 2006 had been filed by the plaintiff seeking execution of the said decree. Only then, it is averred that defendant No.1 received the notice and came to know about the ex parte decree. Then, the present interlocutory application came to be filed by him. 4. The trial Court having gone into the merits of the case and also taking all the circumstances into consideration held that the delay of 1216 days is inordinate and cannot be expected from defendant No.1. 5. This is a case totally where defendant No.1 was found to be not diligent. Even if defendant No.1 is not aware of the ex parte decree passed in the suit, his counsel in the trial Court is expected to know the result of the suit and the same thing must have been informed to him. Even if assuming that there was no intimation from his counsel, he ought to have enquired from the counsel as to what is the progress of the suit proceedings. For about 4 years, it cannot be believed that defendant No.1 had kept silent without being curious of the progress of the suit proceedings. The trial Court was absolutely right in rejecting the present interlocutory application. 6. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed, at the stage of admission, confirming the order under revision. ________________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 13th August, 2010. Ak THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Revision Petition No.4565 of 2008 13th August, 2010. (Ak)