THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2643 OF 2008 DATED: 12.10.2009 Between: Vallaturu Lakshmi Narasamma and others .. Petitioners And Vasili Subbamma .. Respondent ORDER: This civil revision petition, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is directed against the order, dated 01.02.2008, passed in I.A.No.212 of 2007 in O.S.No.311 of 2004, on the file of the Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Gudur, Nellore District, whereunder, the petition filed by the petitioners, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking to condone the delay of 713 days in filing the petition for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 25.03.2005 passed in the suit, was dismissed. Petitioners are the defendants in the suit O.S.No.311 of 2004 filed by the respondent, before the Court below, for delivery of vacant possession of the suit schedule property. After summons were served on the petitioners herein, Vakalath was filed on their behalf, but thereafter they did not file the written statement and did not pursue the suit, therefore, they were set ex parte and an ex parte decree was passed on 25.03.2005. After more than two years of passing of the sai d ex parte decree, the petitioners-defendants sought to file a petition, under Order IX Rule 13 of C.P.C., for setting aside the said ex parte decree, and since there was a delay of 713 days in filing the said petition, they filed the present I.A., seeking to condone the said delay, and the reason assigned for the delay caused is that the 1st defendant, who was looking after the proceedings, was suffering from ill health since 01.03.2005 and therefore she could not pursue the proceedings. Respondent-plaintiff filed counter resisting the petition. The Court below, having considered the matter in detail, dismissed the application, by the impugned order, holding that the delay is not properly explained. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition is preferred. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order and other material made available on record. Admittedly, no medical certificate was filed before the Court below to prove the ill health of the 1st defendant at the relevant point of time. Except stating that the 1st defendant could not pursue the proceedings due to her ill health, the day-to-day delay was not properly explained, as noticed by the Court below. Thus, no sufficient cause was shown by the petitioners for condoning the abnormal delay of 713 days in filing the application for setting aside the ex parte decree. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Court below has rightly dismissed the present I.A., by the impugned order, and I see no reason to interfere therewith under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The civil revision petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. _________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 12th October, 2009. IBL