IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD SATURDAY, THE TWENTYSEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Revision Petition No.3196 of 2011 Between: Mohd. Waheed .. Petitioner AND Taj Mohammed Abdul Rahman and 31 others .. Respondents ORDER: Heard Sri K. Venkatesh Gupta, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri Nagarjuna Reddy Burri, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4/plaintiffs. The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 04-06-2009 in I.A.No.554 of 2007 in O.S.No.90 of 1989 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar. The 24th defendant in O.S.No.90 of 1989 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar, filed the application for setting aside the decree in the suit claiming that he came to know about the decree only on service of notice in E.P.No.75 of 2006 on 16-11-2006. His elder step brother managing the family after the death of his father was claimed to have filed vakalat on his behalf in the suit in 1996 and he claimed absence of any knowledge about the execution of sale deed No.93 of 1986 dated 9-1-1986 by his father. The decree dated 21-09-2005 is detrimental to his interest and hence, he desired that the delay in filing the petition to a tune of 500 days be condoned and the decree be set aside. The plaintiffs opposed the request contending that the judgment and decree were passed on merits and not ex parte, apart from non-explanation of the delay for any period. The 24th defendant knew fully well about the suit and the decree and was served with notice through court and is only attempting to delay the execution of the decree. During the enquiry into the application, the trial Court examined PWs.1 to 3 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.6 and the respondents-plaintiffs did not adduce any evidence. The trial Court passed the impugned order referring to the rival contentions and evidence and noting that the 24th defendant admitted vakalat being filed on his behalf in the main suit and also admitted being served with notices in the application for bringing the legal representatives on record after the death of his father in 2002. The trial Court also noted the absence of any steps taken by the 24th defendant against his elder step brother and the fact that the 24th defendant was aged more than 27 years by 21-09- 2005, the date of the judgment and decree was also taken adverse note of, coupled with the absence of any action thereafter by the 24th defendant. The dismissal of the petition for the said reasons led the 24th defendant approach this Court with this revision contending that there was non-service of summons on the revision petitioner in the suit after his impleadment. The involvement of very valuable house plot in the litigation should have led to condoning the delay to give an opportunity to the 24th defendant when the decree holder could have been compensated by imposition of appropriate terms. Any negligence on the part of the 24th defendant should have been similarly dealt with and in view of the existence of sufficient reasons for condoning the delay, the 24th defendant desired the impugned order to be reversed. The point for consideration is whether the impugned order is susceptible to interference herein? The 24th defendant in its affidavit in support of the application while admitting a vakalat being filed by an advocate on his behalf in O.S.No.90 of 1989, did not elaborate as to whether his elder step brother got the vakalat filed after the death of his father in 1996 with the 24th defendant actually signing on the vakalat. The admitted filing of such vakalat on behalf of 24th defendant in the ordinary and normal course of business would have been with the attestation by a competent person for the signature of 24th defendant. Significantly, the 24th defendant attempted to claim in his affidavit absolute ignorance about all earlier proceedings till the service of notices in the execution petition on 16-11-2006. But, the finding of the trial Court on the admissions of PW.1 is that the 24th defendant at least had knowledge of the petition to bring the legal representatives of his father on record since the service of notices therein in 2002. If he was aged more than 27 years by the date of the decree on 21-09-2005 as noted by the trial Court, he would have been about 24 years old in 2002 and could not have taken shelter under any minority or ignorance after service of notices in the petition to bring the legal representatives on record in 2002. If there was no vitiating factor effecting the vakalat or the pleadings filed on his behalf in the suit since then, which was probablised by any other further action by the 24th defendant in this regard as noted by the trial Court, the judgment and decree are not ex parte within the meaning of Order-IX of the Code of Civil Procedure and when there was no sufficient cause attributed for the abnormal delay of 500 days in applying for setting aside any such decree, the trial Court cannot be considered to have gone wrong in dismissing the petition notwithstanding the absence of any evidence for the respondents-plaintiffs. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition should fail. Sri Nagarjuna Reddy Burri, learned counsel for respondents-plaintiffs also brought to notice that in fact the Execution Petition had reached its logical conclusion after delivery of possession recording the full satisfaction and termination of the execution proceedings. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 27-08-2011 Ksn