THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2041 of 2009 ORDER: 1 The petition to condone a delay of 539 days in filing an application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. i.e. to set aside the ex parte decree was rejected by the court below is the subject matter of this revision. 2 Brief facts are that the respondent herein instituted O.S.No.127 of 2002 against the petitioners herein for the relief of perpetual injunction. In the said suit the petitioners engaged an advocate but failed to file the written statement. Thereafter though sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioners they have not evinced any interest and as such they were set ex parte and thereafter an ex parte decree was passed in favour of the respondent on 20.11.2002. As stated supra, to set aside the said ex parte decree dated 20.11.2002 the present application has been filed under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. and in that process as there was a delay of 539 days the present application also was filed. 3 Heard both sides. 4 The reason assigned by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the matter has been entrusted to one advocate by name Mr. Siva Reddy but he did not evince any interest in the matter and further they were informed by their counsel that the suit is still pending. Afterwards when an application seeking police protection was filed and the same was ordered and police came to the site, they came to know about the fact that the suit was decreed. However, on coming to know about the said fact, the petitioners have not initiated any action against the said advocate. If really it is a fact that the counsel gave false information to the petitioners stating that the suit is pending and if they came to know about the fact that the suit was decreed, they should have initiated necessary action against their counsel, who was defending them in the court below. As the petitioners could not explain as to the steps they have taken against their counsel with regard to the false information given by him, I do not think that the petitioners have come up with clean hands. Further, the suit is of the year 2002 and the same was decreed in the month of November 2002 and the present application was filed on 14.06.2004 and the same was dismissed on 22.03.2009. Therefore, now after lapse of about 8 years, this court is not inclined to restore the suit. 5 Hence, I see no merits in this revision and accordingly the same is dismissed. No costs. -------------- 17.03.2010 kvsn