THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5883 of 2009 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the order, dated 18.09.2009, passed in I.A.No.1213 of 2008 in I.A.No.599 of 2008 in O.S.No.245 of 2002. The respondent/plaintiff filed O.S.No.245 of 2002 for recovery of money and to pass a preliminary decree in her favour. The petitioner herein is the sixth defendant therein. In the suit, only the second and fifth defendants appeared through their advocate, filed written statement and contested the suit and other defendants remained ex parte. After adducing evidence on both sides, judgment was pronounced on 17.11.2003 by passing a preliminary decree in favour of the respondent/plaintiff granting three (3) months time for redemption. Thereafter, the petitioner, who is the sixth defendant, filed I.A.No.599 of 2008 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 1660 days in filing a petition under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex parte decree passed against him on 17.11.2003. The said I.A. was posted for hearing from time to time. When the petitioner was not diligent in pursuing the said I.A., it was dismissed for default on 04.11.2008. To restore the said I.A., the petitioner filed I.A.No.1213 of 2008 but the same was dismissed by the impugned order. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that other defendants were pursuing the matter and that there was communication gap in informing the date, as such, the Court below ought to have given an opportunity to the petitioner to contest the suit. It is to be noticed that the suit was decreed as early as on 17.11.2003, I.A.No.599 of 2008 itself was filed to condone abnormal delay of 1660 days and even such application was not pursued diligently, as such, it was dismissed for non-prosecution on 04.11.2008. The only submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was mistakenly noted the date, as 07.11.2008 instead of 04.11.2008, as stated by him in the affidavit, was not believed by the Court below in the absence of any representation from the learned counsel. In view of abnormal delay in filing a petition under Order IX Rule 13 CPC and further, in view of the reasons stated by the Court below in the impugned order, I do not find any merit in this Civil Revision Petition warranting interference in the impugned order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. For the aforesaid reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 10th NOVEMBER, 2010. kvni