The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Civil Revision Petition No.3988 of 2011 Date: 30.09.2011 Between: Buddi Somaiah ..... Petitioner AND Gunda Laxmi Kumari .....Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri N.Ashok Kumar Counsel for the respondent: None appeared The Court made the following: Order: The petitioner is the judgment debtor in O.S.No.49 of 2008, filed for specific performance of an agreement of sale, which was decreed ex parte on 02-09-2008. The respondent filed E.P.No.24 of 2009 for execution of the said decree. The petitioner failed to contest the said EP by filing a counter-affidavit and also went unrepresented, resulting in an ex parte order being passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Miryalguda, on 15-07-2011, directing execution of sale in favour of the respondent. Seeking setting aside of the said order, the petitioner filed EA.No.294 of 201,1 which, after contest by the respondent, was dismissed, by the learned Senior Civil Judge, vide order, dated 19-08-2011. At the hearing, Sri N.Ashok Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner failed to file a counter-affidavit and went unrepresented on account of his sickness and therefore, he is entitled to an opportunity to contest the EP. I have carefully perused the reasons contained in the order under revision. It is evident, from the facts referred to in the order passed by the Court below, that the petitioner failed to fie a counter-affidavit in the EP for two years and when the case was called on 15-07-2011, there was no representation for him. In the affidavit, filed in support of EA.No.294 of 2011, the petitioner stated that due to ill health, he could not be present before the Court on 15-07-2011. The petitioner failed to disclose the nature of his sickness and substantiate the same by producing evidence such as medical certificate. The conduct of the petitioner shows that all through he remained ex parte, both in the suit and in the EP, without showing any interest whatsoever. Even the applications filed by the petitioner’s father and children, for setting aside the ex parte decree, proved abortive. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any reason for showing indulgence in favour of the petitioner. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition, CRPMP.No.5697 of 2011, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 30th September, 2011 LUR