THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITON No.1533 of 2008 Dated:- 31st January, 2010 Between:- G.Samrajyam, S/o.Papaiah …Petitioner AND M/s.Siri Chit Fund Private Limited and others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITON No.1533 of 2008 ORDER:- This revision has been filed challenging the order dated 04.02.2008 passed in I.A.No.34 of 2004 in O.S.No.22 of 1999 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal. 2. The petitioner herein is the third defendant and the first respondent herein – the chit fund company is the plaintiff in the Original Suit. The said suit was filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,14,902/-. Except the petitioner herein/defendant No.3, defendants 1, 2, 4, and 5 were ex parte by the Court below as they did not contest the suit and the petitioner herein alone contested the suit. He filed written statement before the Court below on 03.03.2000 in which, he had taken a plea that he had not executed any documents as guarantor or signed in the chit agreement or the demand promissory note. On behalf of the plaintiff, P.W.1 was examined in chief on 12.09.2001 and was cross-examined on 20.09.2001 and again he was recalled on 30.11.2001, but however, he was set ex parte on 07.12.2001. 3. The main contention of the petitioner herein in the affidavit filed by him before the Court below to condone the delay of 625 days in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree passed against him is that he could not contact his advocate due to frequent transfers and that his counsel also did not advise him to prove the contents of the written statements. It is also his case that the first defendant is his own brother and that an agent of the plaintiff company by name Shivaji forged his signature on the agreement of guarantee and demand promissory note. 4. The Court below observed that the plaintiffs evidence was closed on 20.09.2001 and that on 09.10.2001, the petitioner was not ready and that on 29.10.2001, costs of Rs.25/- were imposed on the petitioner which he had paid and that again costs of Rs.100/- were imposed on the petitioner for his absence and the said costs of Rs.100/- were not deposited by the petitioner before the DLSA Warangal, and that on 13.11.2001, the petitioner was called absent and then he was set ex parte. Subsequently, P.W.1 was examined on 30.11.2001 and on 07.12.2001 and the judgment was pronounced 04.02.2001 decreeing the suit. 5. The only point that arises for consideration in this revision is whether there are any reasonable grounds to condone the delay of 625 days in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree passed against the petitioner. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner has been working as Deputy Statistical Officer in Municipal Corporation of Warangal and he is not an illiterate person. Admittedly, the evidence on record reveals that the petitioner is residing in Warangal only where the Court is situated and not in any remote village and as such, there was no difficulty for him to contact his advocate. His contention that he was under frequent transfers is not supported by any documentary evidence. Even assuming that he is under frequent transfers from one station to another station, nothing prevented him to contact his advocate over telephone. In the above circumstances, the contention of the petitioner that he could not contact his advocate due to his frequent transfers and that his counsel did not advise him to give evidence in support of his case to disprove the case of the plaintiff appears to be not convincing. Though the petitioner had taken a plea that his signature was forged, but in the absence of any evidence to prove the same, this contention also cannot sustain. 7. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs. _____________________________ JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR 31st January, 2011 Bvv