THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1410 OF 2011 Dated:20.09.2011 Between: Devu Ramana Rao (died) and another .. Petitioners And Mandapaka Satyanarayana and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1410 OF 2011 ORDER: The suit filed by respondents 1 to 3 (hereafter, the plaintiffs) being O.S.No.42 of 2001 for mandatory injunction directing the petitioner and her husband to remove the unauthorized illegal constructions as shown in Red colour in the plaint, decreed ex parte on 13.11.2006. Be it noted, by that time, the first defendant – husband, died and respondents 4 to 10 herein, the children of the petitioners, were brought on record as legal representatives. It appears, the plaintiffs also filed E.P.No.92 of 2009. The petitioner filed I.A.No.10 of 2010 to condone the delay of 1020 days in filing the application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In the affidavit accompanying the said application, she pleaded that she was under the impression that the plaintiffs withdrew the suit after death of her husband; after death of her husband, she suffered mental agony and was in a state of depression; she is an illiterate and her children respondents 4 to 10 are living separately and they did not inform about the ex parte decree in the suit. This was opposed by the plaintiffs. Considering the rival contentions, by impugned order dated 14.02.2011, the learned Junior Civil Judge, Prathipadu, dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. The counsel for the petitioner submits that his client has shown sufficient cause enabling the condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, but the Court failed to appreciate the same in proper perspective. Per Contra, the counsel for respondents 1 to 3/plaintiffs submits that the petitioner made vague allegations; after death of her husband, her children were brought on record as legal representatives; they were very much aware of the ex parte decree and that the allegation that the suit was withdrawn is unfounded one. This Court has been taken through the affidavit of the petitioner filed in I.A.No.10 of 2010. As rightly submitted by the counsel for the plaintiffs, it contains very vague allegations. It is not clear that on what basis the petitioner alleges that she was under the impression that the suit was withdrawn. She also does not give details as to when her children/respondents 4 to 10 knew about the withdrawal of the suit. Viewed from any angle, the order of the Court below does not warrant any interference. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) 20.09.2011 KH