THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5276 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner/defendant filed this Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 C.P.C aggrieved by the order and decree dated 24.08.2009 passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Gannavaram in I.A.No.868 of 2006 in O.S.No.12 of 1999, whereby the application filed by him under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 2260 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree and to give an opportunity to him to contest the suit, was dismissed. The petitioner/defendant filed the above Interlocutory Application stating that he did not receive any summons from the Court in the suit proceedings and that he got knowledge of filing of the suit only on receiving the notice in execution proceedings. Hence, the delay of 2260 days occurred in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree. The respondent/plaintiff filed counter affidavit stating that the petitioner suppressed the factum of receiving suit summons personally on 13.11.1999 from the Court and got filed this petition with false averments and therefore, prayed the Court not to condone the delay. The Court below, considering the entire material available on record, dismissed the Interlocutory Application holding that no bona fide and sufficient cause was shown for condoning the delay. No doubt the petitioner has not stated on which date he received the summons under Order XXI Rule 22 C.P.C in the E.P. Further, a perusal of the docket proceedings in the suit discloses that on 16.11.1999 it was endorsed that “Registered post returned unserved. Absent. Through Court not yet received and await service. Call on 08.02.2000” and on 08.02.2000 it was endorsed that “through Court personally served on 13.11.1999. Defendant called absent and set ex parte”. Then the matter was posted to 25.02.2000 and on the said date the suit was decreed with costs. The petitioner has not specifically pleaded that the summons sent through the Court have not been served and that the endorsement was made on 08.02.2000 as a result of the false representation made by the bailiff, so that the Court can examine the bailiff to prove service of notice. In the absence of the said plea taken by the petitioner, it is not open for the petitioner to contend that the suit summons were not served on him. Therefore, the Court below rightly dismissed the Interlocutory Application and the impugned order does not call for any interference by this Court. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J Date: 09.12.2011 va