HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.Nos.4965 of 2009 & 4967 OF 2009 DATE:02-12-2011 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4965 OF 2009 BETWEEN Potluri Venugopala Rao …Petitioner AND Devabakthuni Durga Nageswari and another …Respondents CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4967 OF 2009 BETWEEN Potluri Venugopala Rao …Petitioner AND Devabakthuni Durga Nageswari and another …Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.Nos.4965 of 2009 & 4967 OF 2009 COMMON ORDER: Both the revisions are arising out of the same proceedings and therefore, they are heard together and being disposed of by this common order. In spite of permitting the petitioner to take out notice on the respondents as early as on 23.10.2009, he has not evinced any interest to take out notice even after two years. Petitioner is the second respondent in M.V.O.P.No.86 of 2000 and owner of the tractor. The M.V.O.P. was decreed ex parte on 31.10.2003 and a sum of Rs.1,83,000/- was awarded in favour of the claimant as a result of accident caused by the vehicle of the petitioner herein. To set aside the ex parte decree, petitioner herein ﬁled I.A.No.662 of 2006 and as there is a delay of 937 days in ﬁling the petition to set aside the ex parte decree, he ﬁled I.A.No.661 of 2006 for condoning the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act stating that himself and ﬁrst respondent in the M.V.O.P. are made liable jointly and severally for payment of award amount with interest, that he is a small farmer, that the ﬁnancier, who ﬁnanced the amount for purchase of the vehicle that involved in the accident took away the vehicle as he failed to pay the instalments due to the loss sustained by him. He engaged an advocate on his behalf in the matter but could not ﬁle counter in time as he was attacked with heart-stroke, which resulted in passing the ex parte decree. The lower Court refused to condone the delay in ﬁling the petition to set aside the ex parte decree on the ground that the reasons assigned by the petitioner hardly constitute suﬃcient cause for condoning the delay and accordingly dismissed I.A.No.661 of 2006 and as a sequel thereof, I.A.No.662 of 2006 was also dismissed. As seen from the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of petition in I.A.No.661 of 2006, except ipse dixit statement of the petitioner that he suﬀered heart-attack, he failed to ﬁle any prescriptions or the name of the doctor who treated him for the said ailment to substantiate his plea. Even in the aﬃdavit, petitioner has stated that the decree holder- claimant already ﬁled execution proceedings against him basing on the ex parte decree for sale of agricultural land, but no date on which, he was served with summons in the E.P. was stated. When the counter aﬃdavit is ﬁled denying the averments of the petition, it is incumbent upon the petitioner to substantiate the suﬃcient cause for condoning the delay. As he has failed to do so, the lower Court rightly refused to condone the delay in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree. No inﬁrmity is discernable with the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. Both the revisions fail and the same are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. DECEMBER 02, 2011 Tsr.