THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.No.3577 of 2010 Date of Order: 20-08-2010 Between: Yekula Ganeswara Rao ..Petitioner and Karra Parvathi ..Respondent The Court made the following Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.No.3577 of 2010 Oral order: The petitioner/defendant filed this revision under Section 115 CPC to revise the order of the Principal District Judge, East Godavari, Rajahmundry made in C.M.A.No.13 of 2009, dated 18-06-2010, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed confirming the order dated 24-03-2009 passed in I.A.No.1220 of 2008 in O.S.No.445 of 2004 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry, dismissing the application filed for condoning the delay in preferring the petition under Order IX Rule 13 CPC seeking to set aside the ex-parte decree dated 26-02-2007. The respondent/plaintiff instituted the above suit for specific performance of agreement of sale, in which the petitioner/defendant was served with notice and put up appearance and also filed written statement. After the issues were settled, the plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and the defendant has not cross-examined P.W.1 and he was set ex-parte on 26-2- 2007 and ex-parte decree was also passed in the suit. In pursuance of the ex-parte decree, the plaintiff filed E.P.No.208 of 2007, in which notice was served on the petitioner/defendant (JDR) under Order XXI Rules 32 and 34 CPC, but the petitioner/defendant did not appear before the executing court as such, the executing court executed the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and delivered the same to her and closed the E.P. on 29-07- 2008. On closure of E.P. the plaintiff filed E.P.No.199 of 2008 for delivery of the plaint schedule property. At that stage the petitioner/defendant filed I.A.No.1220 of 2008 in O.S.No.445 of 2004 under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte decree dated 26-02-2007 and also filed an application to condone the delay of 514 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex-parte decree. In the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay application it is stated by the petitioner that his advocate asserted that the matter will be compromised in due course, so he need not attend the Court and that his counsel prevented him in contesting the proceedings both in the suit as well as in E.P. and played fraud on him. The trial court felt that the petitioner having engaged an advocate and filed the written statement in the suit, preferred not to contest the suit subsequently, for the reasons best know to him and the plea taken by him that he made arrangement for repayment of the loan amount of Rs.40,000/- to the respondent/plaintiff cannot be believable and accordingly dismissed the I.A. On appeal being filed, initially the lower appellate court stayed the execution by order dated 30-04-2009 and it was extended from time to time and ultimately on merits dismissed the appeal holding that the petitioner failed to explain the delay of 514 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex-parte decree and had he got any grievance about the ultimate result of the suit, he should have taken necessary steps immediately thereafter, which itself proves that he got no grievance about the ultimate result of the suit and kept quiet for long time and only after the E.P. was filed and sale deed was executed, he changed his claim and thrown light on the advocate and filed the impugned I.A. Both the courts concurrently held that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 514 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex-parte decree. It is not disputed that when E.P. was filed for execution, notice was served on the petitioner, even after that also the petitioner has not moved to set aside the ex-parte decree and only after execution of the sale deed when E.P. is filed for delivery of the property, the present I.A. came to be filed. It is only an after thought. In view of the same, the concurrent findings recorded by the court below do not suffer from any illegality in exercise of jurisdiction warranting interference. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. 20-08-2010 Murthy