IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD DATED: THIS 25th day of March, 2011. PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.No. 933 of 2011 Between: Lanka Mohan Das and another ..Petitioners and Syamala Nagendra Reddy and another Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.No. 933 of 2011 Order: This revision is filed by the petitioners aggrieved by the dismissal order passed by the learned XI Additional District Judge, Krishna at Gudivada in I.A.No. 238 of 2010 in C.M.A.No.--/2010 refusing to condone the delay of 519 days in filing the appeal. 2. The petitioners herein who suffered ex parte decree in O.S.No. 87 of 2006 on 12-11-2007 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge (FTC), Gudivada filed I.A.No. 231 of 2008 for setting aside the ex parte decree. The trial court on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case passed an order in I.A.No.231 of 2008 on 31-12-2008 directing the petitioners herein to deposit 1/3rd of the suit amount on or before 30-01-2009. The petitioners did not comply with the order dated: 31-12-2008. Subsequently, the respondent No.1/Plaintiff filed E.P.No.51 of 2010. 3. It is stated by the petitioners that on receipt of the notices in E.P.No. 51 of 2010, they filed I.A.No.238 of 2010 before the learned appellate Judge to condone the delay of 519 days in preferring the appeal against the ex parte decree dated: 12-11-2007, stating that the petitioners are poor middle class people having no knowledge about their right to prefer appeal and only after receipt of the notices in execution petition, they approached a learned counsel who advised them to prefer the appeal and therefore the delay caused in filing the appeal may be condoned. 4. A reading of the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the petition hardly constitute sufficient cause for condoning the delay. In view of the same, I am of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the court below does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference by this court. 5. In the result the revision petition is dismissed. No costs. ___________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. March 25, 2011. *BVS