HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.1240 of 2010 Date: March 29, 2010 Between: N. Prasad, S/o.Samuel, aged 45 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Hanamkonda, Warangal District … Petitioner And Telugu Baptist Church, represented by its President, Kompally Vijayam, R/o. West Fort, Fort Warangal, Warangal District … Respondent Order: This civil revision petition, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is filed aggrieved of order, dated 24-11-2008, passed in I.A.No.2099 of 2008 in O.S.No.1786 of 2005, by the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal. The aforesaid suit is filed by the respondent-church, a society registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860, represented by its President, seeking perpetual injunction to restrain the petitioner herein and defendant No.2 in the said suit, from interfering with its day-to-day functions that are being conducted by its office-bearers. In the said suit, the petitioner herein engaged an Advocate, but, did not file any written statement; as such he was set ex parte on 03-11-2006 and an ex parte decree was passed on 20- 04-2006, granting permanent injunction in favour of the respondent herein. To execute the said decree, the respondent herein filed execution petition also. After receipt of notice in the execution proceedings, the petitioner herein filed a petition to set aside the ex parte decree along with I.A.No.2099 of 2008, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay of 880 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree. The same was dismissed by court below, by impugned order dated 24-11-2008. In this revision petition, it is contended by Sri C.A.R. Seshagiri Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, that after receipt of suit notice, the petitioner has handed over the same and a copy of the plaint to the then Secretary of the Society and, thereafter, due to ill-health and education of children, he has shifted his residence to Fort Warangal. It is submitted that the petitioner was under an impression that the Secretary of the church may defend his case, but, no information was passed on to him by the Secretary of the church and as the petitioner was not given any further information, the court below passed an ex parte decree. It is submitted that in spite of sufficient grounds to condone the delay, the court below has rejected the application, by the impugned order, without valid reasons. On the other hand, it is submitted by Sri J.M. Naidu, learned counsel for the respondent, that, from reasons as mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of application in I.A.No.2099 of 2008, there are no sufficient grounds at all to condone the abnormal delay of 880 days; and the trial court, having considered the same, rejected the said application, and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. I have perused a copy of the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.2099 of 2008 and also a copy of the plaint filed in O.S.No.1786 of 2005. From a perusal of the copy of the plaint, it is evident that the church itself has filed the suit, against the petitioner and defendant No.2 therein, specifically alleging that the petitioner and defendant No.2, as office-bearers, have exercised their powers for their personal gains and further, though they have no authority or interest, they have interfered with the secular affairs of the church; hence, suit was filed for perpetual injunction. It is also to be noted that after receipt of the suit notice, the petitioner himself filed appearance, but thereafter, in spite of giving several opportunities, he did not file written statement. Hence, he was set ex parte on 03-04-2006 and thereafter ex parte decree was passed. Although it is the case of the petitioner that he handed over the suit notice and a copy of the plaint to the Secretary and has also shifted his residence and suffered ill-health, but, in the detailed counter filed in I.A.No.2099 of 2008, the same is denied by the respondent herein. When the church itself has filed the suit making allegations against the petitioner, an individual, it appears, the statement of the petitioner that he has handed over the suit notice to the Secretary of the Society appears to be false. When the Society, represented by its President, has filed the suit, and in absence of Secretary being a party, there is no valid reason stated in the affidavit filed by the petitioner, in support of his plea, that he has handed over the suit notice to the Secretary of the Society and he was not informed about further progress of the suit. Even with regard to the allegation of ill-health and shifting of residence, the same are categorically denied in the counter filed by the respondent before the court below. It is also to be noted that in spite of abnormal delay of 880 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree, the petitioner has not chosen to file any oral or documentary evidence in support of his case, to condone the delay. In that view of the matter and in absence of any material placed before this court, this court is of the view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause to condone the abnormal delay of 880 days. The civil revision petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed, however, in the circumstances without any order as to costs. ____________________ (R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) March 29, 2010 MRR