HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI C.R.P. No.2748 of 2009 Date: 28.8.2009 Between: Hashmukhlal Gala, S/o. Veerji Gala, Hyderabad. … Petitioner And J. Kushaldas, S/o.Late ramachandram, Secunderabad. … Respondent HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI C.R.P. No. 2748 of 2009 ORDER: This C.R.P. is directed against the order of the X Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in I.A. No.473 of 2009 in O.S. No.3546 of 2006 whereby and whereunder the I.A. filed by the petitioner/defendant was dismissed. The petitioner filed the aforementioned I.A. before the Court below under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking to condone the delay of 56 days in filing the petition for setting aside the ex-parte decree dated 22.1.2009. In the affidavit filed in support of the I.A., the petitioner has stated that on enquiry by his counsel in the Section, they were informed that the matter is transferred to some other Court and the same was shown and marked in red pen by putting * mark in the hearing book of the Court indicating that it is under transfer, however, no notice was received either by his counsel or by him with regard to the same. Petitioner further stated that subsequently when he went to the Section and made enquiry, he came to know that the suit was decreed on 22.1.2009 itself and after obtaining the certified copy of the judgment on 15.4.2009 and after taking no objection from his previous counsel, he filed the present petition seeking to condone the delay of 56 days in filing the petition for setting aside the ex-parte order. While denying the averments made by the petitioner, the respondent has contended that the petitioner has concocted a story by saying that the section people have informed him that the matter was under transfer and it was marked in Red Pen by putting * mark. He further stated that if at all the matter was under transfer, the petitioner ought to have enquired about the same and the petitioner without doing any such thing has filed the I.A. Hence, he prayed that the I.A. be dismissed. The learned Senior Civil Judge having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, dismissed the I.A. through the impugned order on the ground that even though ample opportunity was given to the petitioner, the petitioner was not diligent enough in prosecuting the case. Hence, the petitioner filed the present revision. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. It is seen from the record that as none represented the matter on 18.12.2008, the matter was adjourned to 24.12.2008 for recording the evidence of the petitioner. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned twice. However, on 2.1.2009 when the matter was called for hearing, none represented the petitioner and hence, the learned Civil Judge after closing the evidence of the petitioner, reserved the matter for judgment. Admittedly, till the pronouncement of the judgment, the petitioner did not file any petition for setting aside the ex-parte decree and the petitioner filed the instant I.A. only after pronouncement of the judgment in the suit. If really, the petitioner was diligent, he ought to have known about the stage of the proceedings and on the contrary the petitioner is pleading ignorance about several facts and filed the present I.A. quite belatedly that too after 56 days after the passing of the ex-parte decreee. The Court below, therefore, taking all these facts into consideration, rightly dismissed the I.A. Hence, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order impugned in this revision. The revision petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ____________________ T. MEENA KUMARI,J Date: 28th August, 2009 pnb