THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4708 of 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 C.P.C assailing the order dated 15.07.2010 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tenali in I.A.No.124 of 2009 in O.S.No.84 of 1999. The respondent/plaintiff bank filed the above suit for recovery of amount based on the mortgage and obtained ex parte decree on 05.09.2000. The petitioner/defendant filed the above Interlocutory Application seeking to condone the delay of 3065 days in filing the petition for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 05.09.2000 stating that since he has been suffering from aliments since 10 years, he was taking treatment in several hospitals at various places, and therefore, he could not prosecute the case properly. The respondent/plaintiff bank opposed the said petition on several grounds. The Court below, after considering the entire material available on record, dismissed the said Interlocutory Application. Hence, this revision petition. Heard. A perusal of the impugned order discloses that earlier the petitioner/defendant filed I.A.No.953 of 2000 to set aside the preliminary mortgage decree dated 05.09.2000 and the same was allowed on payment of costs of Rs.200/-, on 21.06.2002. But as the petitioner failed to comply with the said condition, the petition was dismissed on 02.07.2002. When notice was served on the petitioner for passing final decree in terms of the preliminary decree, the petitioner filed an application for restoration of I.A.No.953 of 2000, which was dismissed for non-compliance of condition, along with I.A.No.488 of 2004 to condone the delay of one year nine months and three days stating that he had no knowledge about the dismissal of I.A.No.953 of 2000, as he was taking treatment in Kerala for mental de- arrangement. The Court below, after considering the entire material available on record, dismissed I.A.No.488 of 2004 also. Thereafter, the petitioner filed I.A.No.1284 of 2004 under Order XXXIV Rule 2(2) C.P.C to extend one year time for payment of the amount, and the Court below allowed the said I.A. granting six months time and passed final decree on merits on 11.10.2004. But, however, the petitioner failed to pay the amount within the stipulated time. In view of the above, it is clear that the petitioner was habituated in filing the Interlocutory Applications one after another to condone the delay in filing the set aside decree petitions. Further, the petitioner has not properly explained the inordinate delay in filing the applications to set aside the decree. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the Court below has rightly dismissed the present Interlocutory Application and the impugned order needs no interference. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date:12.11.2010 va