THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1974 OF 2009 Date:20.01.2011 Between: Aita Earni Babu .. Petitioner And M/s.Sri Padmanabha Bore Well Company, Represented by its Proprietor P.Rajeswara Rao .. Respondent ORDER: Heard both sides. The petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.2579 of 2006 filed by the respondent herein on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, for recovery of the amount. After receiving the suit summons in the said suit, the petitioner filed written statement and contested the suit, but ultimately, suit it was decreed ex parte on 28.01.2008. To set aside the ex parte decree, the petitioner filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C., along with an application in I.A.No.1016 of 2008 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 282 days. The said application was dismissed by the impugned order dated 07.04.2009. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed. Admittedly, the suit was decreed ex parte on 28.01.2008. It is stated that as the decretal amount was not paid, the respondent/decree holder filed E.P.No.76 of 2008. In the said E.P., he came to know that the suit was decreed. It is stated by the petitioner that his advocate failed to inform him about the date of adjournment and therefore he could not attend the Court. In support of the said contention, no such affidavit has been filed by him. Therefore, making allegations against the advocate may not be just and proper. There is no diligence on the part of the petitioner/defendant in contesting the suit and the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. Hence, I do not find any reason to condone the inordinate delay of 282 days. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ V. ESWARAIAH, J Date: 20.01. 2011 KH