IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.R.P.No.2398 OF 2009 Date:06.06.2011 Between:- Jayamma .. Petitioner/Appellant And Chunchu Sattamma and others .. Respondents/Respondents ORDER:- The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order in C.M.A.No.243 of 2007 passed by the VI Additional Senior Civil Judge, Fast Track Court, Medchal, confirming the order in I.A.No.1942 of 2006 in O.S.No.77 of 1985 dismissing the application to condone the delay of 5,353 days in filing an application to set aside an ex parte preliminary decree. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner/appellant contends that though the delay pleaded by the petitioner is very much, the fact remains that the Court has allowed the application in I.A.No.114 of 2004 in O.S.No.77 of 1985 and condoned the delay to set aside the ex parte order in the final decree petition for the same reasons and therefore, the dismissal of the application to condone the delay, as confirmed by the VI Additional Senior Civil Judge, is not legal. 3. According to the counsel for respondent No.1, after the institution of the suit, there was a compromise between the parties and in pursuance of the compromise, the petitioner did not contest the suit and therefore, she was set ex parte and suppressing the above fact, the decree was obtained and further, after a period of ten years, the final decree petition was filed and respondent No.1 has got good chance of success in the suit. 4. Evidently, the right for partition is not disputed and the petitioner is claiming that there was an understanding after the institution of the suit. If against such an understanding, a decree is obtained by fraud or suppression of the fact, there is a remedy open to the petitioner to file an application under Section 47 C.P.C. pleading the same circumstance. But in this case, the condonation of the delay was sought on the ground that after receipt of the summons, the compromise was entered. It is for the petitioner to be diligent in prosecuting the case. The written statement was also not filed. Whatever may be the reasons for not proceeding with the contest in the preliminary decree, since the final decree proceedings are pending and an opportunity was already given to the petitioner to contest the final decree proceedings, I feel that the petitioner can be permitted to plead the circumstances of the settlement and the validity of it in the final decree proceedings, since they are nothing but continuation of the preliminary decree, and therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower Court in dismissing the application to condone the delay and accordingly, this petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. The petitioner can raise the contentions before the Court in the final decree proceedings. There shall be no order as to costs. ____​________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J 6th June, 2011 AMD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.R.P.No.2398 OF 2009 Date: 06.06.2011 AMD