THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY C.R.P.NO.4427 OF 2010 ORDER This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 9-7-2010 passed in I.A.No.157 of 2010 in I.P.No.2 of 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Rayachoty, whereby and whereunder the learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioners under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 165 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree dated 5-9-2008 passed in I.P.No.2 of 2007. The first respondent herein is the petitioner in I.P.No.2 of 2007. He filed I.P.No.2 of 2007 to declare him as an insolvent as his liability exceeds his assets. The petitioners, who are respondents 12,13 and 22, entered appearance in I.P.No.2 of 2007 engaged counsel to contest the I.P. Subsequently, they did not file counter and thereupon, an ex parte order came to be passed on 7-6-2007. The proceedings went on till 5-9-2008 on which date the application filed by the first respondent came to be allowed declaring him as an insolvent. The petitioners herein filed a petition to set aside the ex parte decree dated 5-9-2008 passed in I.P.No.2 of 2007 and also moved I.A.No.157 of 2010 to condone the delay of 165 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree. They pleaded in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that the first petitioner fell ill due to Jaundice and took treatment for seven or eight months and therefore, he could not instruct the advocate to file counter. The first respondent herein filed counter resisting the delay condonation petition. The learned Senior Civil Judge on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties came to the conclusion that the petitioners herein failed to offer sufficient reasons to condone the delay of 165 days and thereby, dismissed the petition by order dated 9-7-2010. Hence, this petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order impugned in the revision. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the first petitioner could not instruct the counsel to file counter in I.A. because of his ill health. A further submission has been made that the petitioners have to get substantial amount from the first respondent and therefore, the ex parte decree dated 5-9-2008 passed in I.P.No.2 of 2007 is liable to be set aside. I have gone through the impugned order in the revision. The petitioners have taken a stand in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that the first petitioner fell ill due to Jaundice and took treatment for seven or eight months. No material has been placed to substantiate their contention that the first petitioner fell ill and took treatment for seven or eight months. In the absence of any material to substantiate the plea advanced by the petitioners, the trial Court is justified in dismissing the delay condonation petition. There is no irregularity or illegality in the order impugned in the revision warranting interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. ____________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY,J rkk Dated: 22-12-2011