THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2455 OF 2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 18.02.2010, in I.A.No.3 of 2010 in O.S.No.56 of 2005 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad, wherein the said application filed by the petitioners herein-defendants 3 and 4 under Order IX Rule 7 CPC to set aside the ex parte order, dated 05.11.2007, was dismissed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the records. 3. Respondent herein filed the suit for specific performance against the defendants 1 and 2. Subsequent to filing of the suit, it is stated that defendants 1 and 2 have sold the suit property in favour of the defendants 3 and 4. Hence, petitioners-defendants 3 and 4 were impleaded by the plaintiff by filing I.A.No.771 of 2005. Petitioners-defendants 3 and 4 engaged a counsel and entered their appearance, but they did not file any written statement in spite of several adjournments. Ultimately, petitioners-defendants 3 and 4 were set ex parte on 05.11.2007. Thereafter, petitioners-defendants 3 and 4 have not taken any steps to get the ex parte order set aside or to file a written statement. They filed the present application after a lapse of two years. Meanwhile, the trial of the suit is in progress and P.Ws.1 and 2 were also examined. 4. The only ground alleged in the affidavit is that they could not file written statement due to lack of knowledge of legal issues involved. It is not as though the petitioners are appearing as parties-in-person. Having engaged a counsel and entered appearance through him, nothing prevented them from filing a written statement in the suit with the professional assistance of the counsel engaged by them. However, no written statement was filed in spite of several adjournments. Even after they were set ex parte, on 05.11.2007, petitioners have not bothered to take any steps to file a written statement by filing an application within reasonable time for setting aside the ex parte order. The ground for non filing of the written statement set out in the affidavit filed in support of the application is not at all convincing or tenable. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would rely upon a decision in LAL DEVI AND ANOTHER v. VANEETA JAIN AND OTHERS[1], wherein the apex Court held in the facts and circumstances of the case that passing of an ex parte decree is too harsh a consequence to be upheld. The defendant cannot be made to suffer an ex parte decree when he was not at fault having duly instructed his counsel to appear before the Court of the learned District Judge. 6. In the present case, it is not alleged that there is any fault on the part of the counsel who was engaged to appear on behalf of the petitioners-defendants 3 and 4. Even as per the averments in the affidavit filed by the petitioners, the written statement was not filed due to lack of knowledge of legal issues. The decision cited is therefore not applicable to the facts of the present case inasmuch as in the above case, though the parties have instructed the counsel he did not appear before the Court and therefore it was held that the party could not be made to suffer. 7. In the circumstances, having regard to the fact that the affidavit filed in support of the application does not disclose any valid or justifiable reasons for not filing the written statement, having entered appearance through a counsel, and also for the inaction alleged on the part of the petitioners for a period of two years before they were set ex parte, it is held that the impugned order, dismissing the application filed by the petitioners, does not call for interference. 8. In the result, Civil Revision Petition is allowed. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 14th December, 2011. Tsy [1] (2007) 7 SUPREME COURT CASES 200