IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.789 OF 2010 Between : M/s. Shriram Chits Private Ltd., Rep.by its Manager and another ....PETITIONERS A N D G.Nagendra Rao …RESPONDENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.789 OF 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is filed challenging the order, dated 03.11.2009, in I.A.No.184 of 2009 in O.S.No.56 of 204 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The respondent herein, who is aged about 73 years and retired as Mandal Educational Officer, seems to have deposited some amounts with the petitioners’ Chit Fund Company and after maturity period, the petitioners’ company failed to pay the said amount. Subsequently, the respondent filed O.S.No.56 of 2004, for recovery of money against the petitioners. In the said suit, the respondent was examined in chief as PW-1 on 27.07.2006, and he was partly cross- examined by the petitioners counsel on 07.01.2006. As there was no representation on behalf of the petitioners herein, further cross examination of PW-1 was closed on 09.10.2006, and the matter was posted for petitioners’ evidence on 23.10.2006. As there was no representation on behalf of the petitioners, their evidence was closed on 14.03.2007. Thereafter, the matter was heard and Judgment was pronounced on 15.10.2008. Thus, it is clear that the decree was passed almost after two years from the date of the examination of respondent/plaintiff as PW-1 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that since some documents were misplaced, they could not cross-examine PW.1. The petitioners filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. to set aside the Judgment and decree along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, read with Section 151 C.P.C., to condone the delay of 225 days i.e., from 16.10.2008 to 01.06.2009 in filing the petition under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. 4. Obviously, the petitioners are counting period from the date of pronouncement of Judgment. But they have not calculated the period from which date they had taken adjournment for cross examining PW-1 i.e., from 07.01.2006 onwards. Whatever it may be, a reading of the impugned order makes it clear that the petitioners have not shown any valid and convincing reasons for condoning the delay of 225 days. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Vikarabad, needs no interference by this Court. 5. Further, in a case between MEKALA RAMASUBBAIAH V POTULA YESEPU AND OTHERS [1], this Court observed as follows: “where the suit was decreed ex parte on failure to appear and a remedy under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code is not lost when the Court had not resorted to Explanation to Rule 2 of Order XVII while decreeing the suit ex parte and such party need not file an appeal”. 6. There cannot be any doubt that an application filed under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C., in such circumstances is maintainable. But however, in the instant case, on facts, it is clear that the petitioners failed to explain properly the delay of 225 days in filling the application to condone the delay. Therefore, I hold that the Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR, J JULY 05, 2010. YVL [1] 2008 (5) ALT 165