THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.R.P.No.3791 of 2006 Date:05.03.2010 Between: Mahalakshmi & Co. rep. By its Prop. Pamu Shakharaiah …Appellant And Gangisetty Bhagyalaxmi and 25 others ….Respondents THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.R.P.No.3791 of 2006 JUDGMENT: This revision petition is filed against the order, dated 01.02.2006 passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, at Warangal in I.A.No.854 of 2005 in O.S.No.9 of 1994. 2. I have heard both the learned counsel. 3. The 9th defendant filed I.A.No.854 of 2005 before the trial Court under Order IX Rule 7 of CPC to set aside the order dated 25.03.1994 passed ex parte in his absence on the date of hearing. After making an enquiry into the said petition, the learned trial Court dismissed the same. Feeling aggrieved, the 9th defendant filed the present revision. 4. The first respondent filed the suit for partition and the 3rd defendant in the said suit had stated that he agreed to sell northern half of item No.2 of plaint ‘A’ schedule property to the revision petitioner herein for a consideration of Rs.2,50,000/-, and received a sum of Rs.90,000/- besides a sum of Rs.10,000/- which he borrowed from the revision petitioner earlier and executed an agreement of sale in favour of the revision petitioner on 20.02.1993. The revision petitioner supports the version of the 3rd defendant/respondent. 5. However, admittedly, the revision petitioner who is the 9th defendant in the suit was served with summons and was absent on 25.03.1994 when the suit was posted for hearing and accordingly, he was set ex parte on the said date. His version is that relying on the promise made by the 3rd respondent who assured that he would look after the litigation on behalf of the revision petitioner, the revision petitioner did not pursue the matter, but the 3rd respondent failed to take any steps on his behalf. 6. On the other hand, the version of the 1st respondent is that the revision petitioner is the person set up by the 3rd respondent and the version concerning the agreement of sale was only created for the purpose of his defence and to defeat the rights of the 1st respondent and therefore, it cannot be accepted. 7. In any event, it cannot be said that the ground on which the ex parte order was sought to be set aside i.e. on the promise made by the 3rd respondent, the revision petitioner did not pursue his defence in the suit, cannot be said to be a reasonable explanation. Further, even though there is no limitation for setting aside the ex parte order, an application for the said purpose has to be made within a reasonable time. 8. In the instant case, the order setting the revision petitioner ex parte in the suit was passed on 25.03.1994, whereas he filed the application to set aside the same on 21.10.2005 i.e. after lapse of eleven years. Therefore, there is inordinate delay in making the application and the cause basing on which the ex parte order was sought to be set aside is not reasonable and the trial Court did not commit any mistake in dismissing the application made by the revision petitioner and this Court will not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the ex parte order. 9. The revision petition is devoid of any merit and accordingly, the same is dismissed with costs. _______________ R. KANTHA RAO, J Date:05.03.2010 CCM THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.R.P.No.3791 of 2006 Date:05.03.2010