THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CRP NO. 4564 OF 2009 30-10-2009 BETWEEN; Kolla Kishore Kumar and another ...Petitioners vs. Koniki Jayalakshmi ...Respondent THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CRP NO. 4564 OF 2009 ORAL ORDER: The revision petition is misconceived. It is directed against the orde dated 10-08-2009 of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chirala rejectin I.A.No.7 of 2009 preferred by the petitioners/defendants in O.S.No.136 o 2001 seeking condonation of a delay of 104 days in instituting a application under order IX Rule 13 CPC for seeking recall of the ex part decree. The respondent herein filed the suit for declaration of title an recovery of possession against the revision petitioners. The writte statement was filed on behalf of the revision petitioners in 2002. The su was decreed ex parte on 23-09-2008 as the revisio petitioners/defendants did not participate thereafter in the litigativ process. In the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.7 of 2009 the revisio petitioners pleaded that at the time of filing the written statement the counsel had informed that their presence is not necessary and they woul be informed at the stage of trial. They were awaiting a call from the counsel, which did not materialise; the Advocate was also not available a the office. When enquired about the stage of the suit, they learnt of the e parte decree dated 23-09-2008. They also learnt that they were set e parte on 03-07-2008 as they failed to participate in the process. Lack o information and lack of co-operation and intimation by their counsel i stated to be the reason for the petitioners’ not participating in the suit. The Court below analysed the oral evidence recorded in I.A an rightly came to the conclusion that there was no justification for exercise o discretion to restore the suit by condoning the delay of 104 days. Th Court below observed that in the cross-examination, the revision petitione as PW.1 (in the I.A.) admitted that he went to the office of his Advocate o 30-09-2008 and learnt on that day that the suit was decreed; the advocat also had informed the date and had addressed a letter by post. PW.1 als admitted that on 28-09-2008 itself he learnt through his counsel that th suit was decreed. The court also found that the petitioners were initially se ex parte in 2008, as they failed to file the written statement. Then they file petition to set aside the ex parte order which was allowed and the writte statements were filed and issued framed thereafter. In the year 2004 a Advocate Commissioner was appointed for cross-examination of PW.1 i the suit and the warrant was returned by the Commissioner on 12.07.200 recording that defendants’ counsel failed to cooperate in the cros examination of the witness despite the Commissioner having issued notice and personally requesting the counsel to cooperate in the recordin of testimony. It is further recorded in the order of the Court blow that severa subsequent processes occurred which disclose that the counsel of th revision petitioners/defendants knew about the suit and the passing of th ex parte decree. On a consideration of the entire material on record and o a cogent and careful analysis the court below rejected I.A.No.7 of 2009. This court discerns no error in the exercise of discretion or applicatio of law by the Court below warranting revisional interference. The presen litigative campaign of the petitioners is a clear abuse of the Court process The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed at the stage o admission. No order as to costs. ______________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 30th OCTOBER 2009. oTSNR