THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P.No. 2804 of 2010 Oral order: The revision petitioners are defendants 1, 13 and 15 in O.S.No. 25 of 2008 filed by the respondents 1 to 3 herein against the revision petitioners and the other respondents herein for partition of the suit schedule property. The revision petitioners filed I.A.No. 513 of 2008 under Order 9 Rule 7 read with Section 151 CPC seeking recall of the ex parte order dated 8-8-2005. In the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No. 513 of 2008, the deponent i.e., the 1st revision petitioner pleaded that they were served with suit notices and entrusted the Vakalath to the 8th defendant as he promised to file Vakalath on behalf of his family members and look after the revision petitioners’ interest as well. They were under the impression that their interests are well protected. The suit was transferred to the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Addanki from the Sub-Court, Ongole. Thereafter when the petitioners informed the 8th defendant that they want to tender evidence they learnt that the plaintiffs were proclaiming that the suit schedule property would be put up for auction. When the revision petitioners enquired with the 8th defendant he informed them that the suit was coming up for arguments even without the revision petitioners having been examined. Hence they filed the application on learning that they were set ex parte on 8-8-2005. The plaintiffs filed a counter denying categorically the averments in I.A.No., 513 of 2008 and pleaded that the 1st and 2nd revision petitioners herein/applicants in the I.A. had engaged an Advocate and filed a petition I.A.No. 721 of 2005 to set aside the ex parte order dated 18-7-2005 in I.A.No. 587 of 2005 and after that exparte order was recalled, they prosecuted I.A.No. 587 of 2005. Thereafter the son of the 1st and 2nd revision petitioners one Venkata Reddy was examined as DW5 on behalf of defendants 2 to 8. DW5 admitted in cross- examination his relationship with the petitioners 1 and 2 herein i.e., being the son; further testified that DW5 and the petitioners 1 and 2 are living in one house as joint family members and that his mother had executed the sale deed-Ex.C1 but is not in a fit condition to tender evidence and filed sale deed dated 30-6-1976. The Court below, on a consideration of the several factors including that as per the suit docket noting dated 8-8-2005 summons on defendants/revision petitioners herein were served by post; they were set ex parte and the suit was adjourned for filing of the written statements of defendants 2,3,5 and 6 to 8. In the petition under Order 40 Rule 1 CPC i.e., a receiver application filed along with the main suit by the plaintiffs, notices were sent to the respondents/defendants including the revision petitioners and they were set ex parte on 18-7- 2005. The revision petitioners themselves filed I.A.No. 721 of 2005 to set aside the ex parte order dated 18-7-2005 in I.A.No. 587 of 2005. The said application was allowed on 25-10-2005. Thus their present plea that after receipt of suit summons they had entrusted Vakalath to the 8th defendant, who is the brother’s son and who assured to take care of the litigative interests of the revision petitioners, is a false statement, so also the contention (asserted in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No. 513 of 2008) that the 8th defendant failed to inform the revision petitioners about the ex parte order dated 8-8-2005, as the petitioners themselves had filed I.A.No. 721 of 2005 seeking setting aside of the ex parte order in I.A.No. 587 of 2005. The Court below concluded that clearly the petitioners were prosecuting their case independently and not with the assistance of the 8th defendant. The Court below further recorded that from the testimony of DW5 (the son of the revision petitioners 1 and 2 herein) it is legitimate to infer that the revision petitioners were aware of the trial in the suit having commenced, the plaintiffs evidence closed and their son DW5 having been examined in the suit. For the aforementioned reasons, the Court below declined to grant relief in I.A.No. 513 of 2008 and dismissed the said application. This Court discerns no error either in the application of law or in the exercise of its discretion by the Court below, warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. There are no merits. The revision petition is dismissed. No costs. _________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 23rd July, 2010. GRR