THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.819 of 2008 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order, dated 28.09.2007 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada in I.A.No.120 of 2007 in O.S.No.278 of 2006, whereby the application filed for condoning the delay of 113 days in filing the petition under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C and Section 115 C.P.C to set aside the ex parte decree dated 08.09.2006 passed in the said suit, has been dismissed. The petitioners/defendants filed the above Interlocutory Application contending that the respondent/plaintiff filed the above suit and obtained an ex parte decree wilfully and deliberately behind their back with a view to have wrongful gain for himself and to cause wrongful loss to them. The summons in the said suit were not properly served on the petitioners and only on receiving notice under Order XXI Rule 54 (1A) CPC, they came to know about the filing of the suit and passing of ex parte decree, and hence, immediately they filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C to set aside the ex parte decree, with a delay of 113 days and the said delay is neither wilful nor wanton and same has to be condoned. The Court below, by the impugned order dated 28.09.2007, dismissed the Interlocutory Application, by giving cogent reasons, namely, the suit summons were sent to the defendants and on 05.09.2006 the summons were returned with an endorsement “refused”, which resulted in passing of ex parte decree; that on refusal of summons by the defendants, the Process Server affixed a copy of the summons to the door of their house by complying with Order V Rule 19 C.P.C., and returned the summons stating that when he went to the Village of the defendants and identified them and offered to serve the summons, they refused to receive the same, as such, he affixed the copy of summons on the door of the house of the defendants and the said endorsement was supported by a mediator and that sworn affidavit was also given by the Process Server in accordance with Rule 19 C.P.C. In view of the above findings recorded by the Court below, it is for the petitioners-defendants to explain the delay in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree, by entering into the witness box supporting their contention. Further, the petitioners have not taken any steps for summoning the Process Server for the purpose of cross-examination. In view of the same, the very pleadings in the affidavit that the suit summons were not served on them and that they do not know about the passing of the ex parte decree until they received the summons in the E.P., do not serve any purpose. In the circumstances, the discretion exercised by the Court below dismissing the Interlocutory Application does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity requiring correction in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J Date: 04.02.2011 va