THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Civil Revision Petition No. 5261 of 2006 Order: This CRP is directed against the orders dated 28.11.2005 passed in CMA No.3 of 2003 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem, confirming the orders dated 21.01.2003 passed in I.A. No.546 of 2002 in O.S. No. 73 of 1997 by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem. The Petitioners herein are the legal heirs of the defendant in the original suit. The respondent herein filed the suit alleging that the defendant is a tenant on the northern portion of the plaint schedule property which he had taken on lease in 1996 agreeing to pay rent at Rs.30/- per month and subsequently he failed to pay the rents. The respondent also claimed that the plaint schedule property originally belonged to her sister T. Kantamma, who had bequeathed the said property to her under a registered Will dated 29.01.1996. Thus, the claim of the respondent is based on a Will said to have been executed by her sister T. Kantamma and that the said Kantamma died in the same year. The said suit was adjourned from the year 1997 till 22.02.2002 and since the petitioners herein did not file any written statement till 22.02.2002 on that day they were set ex parte. Then the suit was posted to 01.03.2002 for plaintiff’s evidence and ultimately the suit was decreed on 01.03.2002. Then the petitioners herein filed I.A. No.546 of 2002 praying to set aside the ex parte decree, and the said petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, they preferred CMA No.3 of 2003 and the same was also dismissed. Against the same, the present CRP is filed. The only ground taken by the petitioners is that their counsel before the trial Court could not attend the Court due to his personal inconvenience. There is no explanation as to why the written statement could not be filed from the year 1997 till the year 2002. The absence of counsel due to his personal inconvenience is not a ground to condone the absence of a party. There are no justifiable grounds to interfere with the well reasoned orders passed by both the Courts below. The CRP is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the CRP is dismissed. No costs. ______________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Date: 14.02.2011 Nsr