IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICIATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH, AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.3319 OF 2010 Between:- M.Amarnath …Petitioner A n d Kumudini and two others …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.3319 OF 2010 ORDER: The civil revision petition is directed against order dated 22-07-2010 in I.A.No.245 of 2010 in O.S.No.104 of 2002, on the file of X-Additional Chief Judge (F.T.C), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein the said application filed by the 5th respondent herein (D-1) for setting aside the ex parte order dated 27-06-2002 under Order IX Rule 7 CPC, was allowed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-D-2 and the learned counsel for the 5th respondent-D-1. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner is the son and respondents 1 to 4 are the daughters of the 5th respondent. The daughters filed the suit for partition and separate possession. The 5th respondent herein, the mother, was set ex parte on 27-06- 2002 as she did not choose to contest the suit. The petitioner-D-2 filed written statement contesting the suit. Recording of evidence is completed and the matter stood posted for arguments. At that stage, the 5th respondent filed I.A.No.245 of 2010 under Order IX Rule 7 CPC for setting aside the ex parte order dated 27-06-2002 on the ground that though she received the summons, she kept quiet on the representation of her son that he will look after the case by engaging a counsel and that she was under the impression that vakalath was filed on her behalf also. 4. Admittedly, the 5th respondent herein was served with summons and she did not choose to enter appearance and contest the suit. She was, therefore, set ex parte as long back as on 27- 06-2002. Now, eight years thereafter when the matter stood posted for arguments, the 5th respondent came forward with a plea that her son, the petitioner, misrepresented to her and she was under the impression that a counsel was engaged on her behalf also. The said plea cannot, for a moment, be believed in view of the fact that the petitioner and 5th respondent have been residing together in the same house all these years and there has been no conflict of interest between them all along. The affidavit filed in support of the application does not disclose any valid or sufficient grounds for not taking steps immediately or within a reasonable time after she was set ex parte. The trial Court, by a cryptic order, allowed the application only on the ground that the suit is for partition and, therefore, the 5th respondent can be permitted to come on record. When the 5th respondent has chosen to remain ex parte and kept quiet without taking any steps for a long period of eight years and the matter has reached the fag end of the trial and stood posted for arguments, the conduct of the 5th respondent in filing the present application for setting aside the ex parte order, is nothing but an attempt to further protract the proceedings. 5. In the circumstances, the impugned order which is bereft of any reasons is unsustainable and the same is accordingly set aside and consequently I.A.No.245 of 2010 filed by the 5th respondent (D-1) stands dismissed. This does not preclude the trial Court from conferring a share to the 5th respondent (D-1) in the suit property if she is found entitled for the same in accordance with law and in the event of the suit being decreed for partition. 6. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 25th February, 2011 Lrkm