THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.R.P.No. 1057 of 2010 DATE: 02-02-2011 Between: K.Ramulu and another .. Petitioners And Punjab and Sind Bank, Secunderabad. .. Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.R.P.No. 1057 of 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order in I.A.No.431 of 2009 in O.S.No. 296 of 2002 dismissing the application to condone the delay of 1,724 days in filing an application to set aside the ex parte decree passed on 30.12.2004. 2. The lower Court found that the delay sought to be condoned, is not properly explained and the contention of the petitioners about the lack of knowledge or belief in the adjustment, cannot be accepted and consequently, the application was dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contends that the petitioner/defendant is an Advocate, on panel of the plaintiff-bank, certain amounts have to be paid to the revision petitioner and when the matter was talked with the Manager, he said that it is settled and, therefore, there is no liability to pay the amount. It is also further submitted that there was an understanding for one time settlement and it was in progress for some time and still attempts are being made to go for one time settlement. 4. Evidently, the revision petitioner is an Advocate and it is not a case where he was not served with the summons and he is not aware of the proceedings before the Court. It is difficult to believe that the information given by the Manager, that the account will be closed and that no further proceedings will be taken as informed by his counsel and, therefore, he did not appear before the Court, cannot be accepted. Anyway, no proof is filed for such information said to have given by the counsel on contacting the Manager of the bank. It is prudent for any person, that too, for an Advocate to see when the claim of nearly Rs.6,00,000/- was made for getting the steps recorded in the suit about the settlement, if any, or the information given by the Manager. 5. Evidently, even if the petitioner herein is to get any amounts towards the fee, no counter-claim was made in the lower Court and there is no question of set-off to be given to the amounts due. Since the learned counsel for the petitioner represents that serious attempts are being made to go for one time settlement, I feel that an opportunity can be given to the petitioner and the interest of justice would meet if the petitioner is directed to deposit 25% of the decretal amount and also costs, within four weeks, failing which the petition stands dismissed. On such deposit of the amount, the plaintiff is permitted to withdraw the entire amount. Each party to bear their own costs. Accordingly the revision is allowed. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J 2nd February, 2011 Note: Issue cc in 2 days. B/o. MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.R.P.No. 1057 of 2010 DATE: 02-02-2011 MR