THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 339 OF 2011 ORDER: The petitioner herein is third defendant, filed the present revision challenging the common order dated 8.2.2008 in I.A.No. 1660 of 2007 in O.S.No. 1547 of 2001 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, dismissing an application filed under Order 9 Rule 9 read with section 151 of Civil Procedure Code to restore I A No. 1310 of 2004. The plaintiff/first respondent herein filed a suit for declaration that the suit schedule land admeasuring Ac.2.00 in R S No. 488 which was shown as R.S.No.447 and for a direction to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Mylavaram Mandal to issue pattadar pass book in his favour and for re-survey of R.S.No. 488 and for a consequential permanent injunction restraining the first defendant from interfering with his possession over the subject land. The revision petitioner herein, vide orders in I A No. 3556 of 2001 got himself impleaded in the suit as third respondent, however, since he has not filed written statement he was set exparte and suit was decreed exparte on 26.8.2003. Thereafter, the petitioner herein filed I A No.1310 of 2004 under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay of 17 days and I A No. 1311 of 2004 under Order 9 Rule 13 read with section 151 of Civil Procedure Code to set aside the exparte decree. In the said applications notices were ordered and since the plaintiff did not appear he was set exparte and since process was not paid, said applications were dismissed. Thereafter, plaintiff filed I A Nos. 674 and 675 of 2005 to set aside the exparte order. While so, I A Nos. 1659 and 1660 of 2007 were filed to restore I.A.No.1310 of 2004 by condoning the delay of 166 days and I A Nos. 1661 and 1662 of 2007 were filed to restore I.A.No.1311 of 2004 by condoning the delay of 166 days. The petitioner contends that due to ill health he was undergoing treatment from 21.1.2007 to 3.8.2007 and he could not properly instruct his counsel to pay the process fee. These applications were contested by plaintiff and he filed counter affidavits in said applications contending that the revision petitioner is actively pursuing another suit in O S No. 62 of 2005 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Nuzvid and present before the Court and gave instructions to his counsel for cross examination of PW.1 as such the plea of ill health is false. The Court below having considered the matter, has not accepted the plea taken by the revision petitioner since he himself got impleaded in the suit against the wishes of the plaintiff and in one way or the other not allowing the plaintiff to enjoy the fruits of the decree and resorting to filing series of applications. It is also to be noted that applications filed by the petitioner in I A Nos. 1310 and 1311 of 2004 for condonation of delay were dismissed for non payment of batta and petitioner except stating that he is not well, did not choose to file any proof as regards his ill-ness and that he could not move out to go to his counsel to give instructions. Further, in the counter affidavit, it is the case of the plaintiff/first respondent herein that the revision petitioner is actively pursuing another suit in OS No. 62 of 2005 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Nuzvid, being present in the Court and gave instructions to his counsel to cross examine P W 1 in the said suit on 2.7.2007 and 13.7.2007. The revision petitioner did not deny about his attending the Court on said dates, but he contends that he is taking treatment for jaundice from 21.1.2007 to 3.8.2007, which speaks about the bonafides of the revision petitioner. Taking into considerations all these aspects, the Court below has rightly exercised its discretion and dismissed the applications. The order of the Court bellows needs no interference by this Court. The revision fails and accordingly dismissed. No costs. ______________ A GOPAL REDDY,J DATE: 25.2.2011 TVK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 339 OF 2011 Date: 25.2.2011