THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Civil Revision Petition No.5089 of 2009 ORDER: This civil revision petition, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is directed against the common order dated 11.09.2009 passed in I.A.Nos.4402 and 4404 of 2008 in O.S.No.218 of 2006 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Ranga Reddy District. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent herein, as plaintiff, filed the suit in O.S.No.218 of 2006 before the Court below, against the petitioner herein, for declaration of her title over the suit schedule property, for recovery of possession and also for perpetual injunction, and the same was decreed ex parte on 21.04.2008. The petitioner herein-defendant, by way of present applications, prayed the Court below to set aside the said ex parte decree dated 21.04.2008, by condoning the delay of 125 days caused in filing the petition for setting aside the ex parte decree. It was the case of the petitioner that he is not aware of the suit proceedings, that his residential address was wrongly shown by the plaintiff and, hence, summons could not be served on him, that the notice by way of substituted service was published in the newspaper namely “Ee Sayantram”, which is not a widely circulated newspaper, and he came to know about the ex parte decree only on 16.09.2008, when E.P. proceedings were initiated. Respondent herein resisted the petitions, by filing counter, stating that the petitioner, being well aware of the suit proceedings, avoided service of summons intentionally and that in another suit filed by him in O.S.No.628 of 2000, for perpetual injunction, he has shown his residential address as shown in the present suit. The Court below, having considered the matter in detail, dismissed the petitions, by the impugned common order. Aggrieved thereby, the present civil revision petition is filed. Heard the learned counsel on record and perused the impugned order and other material available on record. Though the petitioner contended that he has changed his place of residence from the one shown in the present suit, he has not produced any material before the Court below in proof of his contention, as is evident from the impugned order. Further, it was observed by the Court below that the petitioner, having contended that he came to know about the ex pate decree on 16.09.2008, filed the present petitions on 24.09.2008 and no reasons were furnished by him for not filing the petitions immediately after 16.09.2008. Thus, there being no bona fides on the part of the petitioner, the Court below has rightly dismissed the petitions and I see no reason whatsoever to interfere with the order under revision. The civil revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 25th January, 2010 IBL