IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO : 2536 of 2009 Petition under Section ____ of CPC., to revise/against the order dated ______ in NO : of 0 on the file of the court of the Between: Nallamalli Satyanarayana S/o Venkata Subbaiah R/o Chirala Prakasam District ..... PETITIONER AND Ranga Sujatha W/o Satyanarayana R/o Mutyalapet, Perla, Chirala Prakasam District .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.NIMMAGADDA SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.CH.DHANAMJAYA The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P.No. 2536 of 2009 13-08-2009 Oral Order: This revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is misconceived. It is directed against the order dated 16-03-2009 of the Court of the learned V-Additional District Judge, Ongole rejecting C.M.A.No. 28 of 2008, an appeal directed against the order dated 15-04-2008 of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Chirala rejecting I.A.No. 293 of 2008 in I.A.No. 1867 of 2007 in O.S.No. 22 of 2004. The respondent filed O.S.No. 22 of 2004 before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Chirala on the basis of a mortgage. The suit was decreed. The plaintiff thereupon filed I.A.No. 1867 of 2007 for passing of a final decree. Notice thereupon was ordered to the defendant-revision petitioner. The revision petitioner entered appearance on 28-01-2008. I.A.No. 1867 of 2007 was posted to 11-02-2008 for counter and thereafter to 22-02-2008. On 22-02-2008 there was no representation on behalf of the revision petitioner, respondent in I.A.No. 1867 of 2007 and on being called absent and no counter having been filed either, the trial Court set the revision petitioner ex-parte, allowed I.A.No. 1867 of 2007 and passed final decree. Thereafter the revision petitioner filed I.A.No. 293 of 2008 on 10-03-2008 for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 22-02-2008 in I.A.No. 1867 of 2007. The affidavit filed in support of I.A.No. 293 of 2008 by the revision petitioner is a classic illustration of irrelevance in pursuit of brevity. To the extent relevant and material, the affidavit reads: In pursuance of the preliminary decree the respondent filed the petition for passing the final decree. I put on appearance. On 22-2-08 I was set ex-parte and final decree was passed in pursuance of the preliminary decree. I have got a contest for passing the final decree in view of the evidence adduced. I am advised to file a petition to set aside ex-parte order dt. 22-2-08 in I.A.No. 1867 of 2007. I am also filing the counter to the final decree petition. It is therefore just and necessary that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to set aside the order dt.22-2-08 in I.A.No. 1867 of 2007 otherwise I suffer irreparable loss and injury. I.A.No. 293 of 2008 was rejected by the trial Court on the ground that no reason was assigned in the affidavit explaining why the revision petitioner failed to appear in the Court on the adjourned date fixed or failed to file a counter to the final decree proceedings. Aggrieved by the rejection of I.A.No. 293 of 2008, the petitioner preferred C.M.A.No. 28 of 2008. The lower appellate Court rightly confirmed the conclusion of the trial Court that no reasons are vouchsafed by the revision petitioner for seeking recall of the ex-parte final decree passed in I.A.No. 1867 of 2007. This Court concurs. There are no merits. The revision petition is dismissed. No costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated:13-08-2009 Pvks