THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4621 of 2009 23.10.2009 Between: Kowru Satyanarayana, S/o.Naguru … Petitioner and Gubbala Venkata Narasamma, W/o.Veerabhadra Rao … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4621 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner is defendant in O.S.No.125 of 2000 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tanuku. The suit was filed by respondent for recovery of a sum of Rs.74,000/- based on a promissory note dated 30.11.1997. The suit was decreed ex parte on 08.8.2000. The respondent then filed Execution Petition. At that stage, father of petitioner filed a claim petition alleging that petitioner had no right over the property. The same was dismissed. In Execution Petition, immovable property of petitioner was attached and brought to sale. The respondent with leave of the Court purchased the property in the auction. The sale was confirmed and property was delivered to respondent on 07.7.2004 through Court. Two years thereafter, petitioner filed I.A.No.2213 of 2006 seeking to condone the delay of five years six months 25 days in filing application to set aside ex parte decree. The same was dismissed on 15.7.2009. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed instant civil revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). This Court heard learned Counsel for petitioner. He submits that the order of trial Court suffers from error wherein reasons shown by petitioner for condonation of delay are not properly appreciated by the lower Court. It is well settled that in exercise of its powers, ordinarily revisional Court shall not interfere with the orders passed by Subordinate Court condoning delay in initiating proceedings. It is also well settled that when the Subordinate Court declines to condone the delay, revisional Court has to independently consider the matter. In view of this, this Court has considered this revision independently and finds that there is no merit in revision petition. In support of I.A.No.2213 of 2006, petitioner prayed that he has not received summons from the trial Court, that for more than eight (8) years he has been residing at Kompalli village but not at Siddantham, that through his relatives he came to know about the suit and execution proceedings, that he came to Tanuku and got information about respondent obtaining the decree and execution proceedings and immediately he filed application seeking to set aside ex parte decree with an application to condone the delay. In support of such plea, he has also filed the certificate of residence issued by Village Revenue Officer, Kompalli, and three other certificates given by M/s.Green ‘n’ Greens Landscaping, Friend of Greenery and Sri Vinayaka Nursery. This Court has considered the documents placed by petitioner very carefully. The certificate of residence is tampered and interpolated. It is not clear on which date it was obtained. The other three certificates would only show that petitioner is Proprietor of M/s.Sri Vinayaka Nursery, which has its business place at No.2-77, Opposite Sivareddi Godown, Kompalli. These documents by themselves may not support plea that petitioner was not served with summons and that he was not aware about the suit proceedings. Admittedly petitioner’s family stays in Siddantham. It is quite unimaginable to think that a person who has set up business at far off place would not visit his family at least on festival occasions and other social functions like marriages. It is not his case that he never visited Siddantham after he left for Kompalli. Secondly admittedly his father filed claim petition before lower Court claiming property. The same was dismissed on 11.5.2004. At least at that stage petitioner to whom the knowledge can be imputed ought to have moved the Court. He did not do so. He waited too long and then filed application seeking to set aside ex parte after lapse of more than 5½ years. The explanation offered by petitioner for such delay is unacceptable and his allegations are quite improbable. The trial Court considered this aspect in proper perspective in the light of the decision of Division Bench of this Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v A.Murali Madhava Rao[1] and rightly dismissed the application. In the result, for the above reasons, the civil revision petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO,J) October 23, 2009 YS [1] 2009(3) ALT 637 (DB)