IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.718 OF 2010 Between: Muchenthala Sammi Reddy and others .....PETITIONERS AND Malladi Poolamma ....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.718 OF 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is filed against the order, dated 20.01.2010, in I.A.No.390 of 2009 in O.S.No.55 of 2006, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Huzurabad, whereunder and whereby, the petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to condone the delay of 293 days in filing the petition by the petitioners, to set aside the ex parte decree, dated 13.02.2009, in O.S.No.55 of 2006, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Huzurabad, and to enabe them to file their written statement and proceed with the suit, was dismissed on the ground that the petitioners were not diligent in availing the remedy. 2. Heard. 3. It is not in dispute before this Court that on 21.04.2008, the petitioners filed application in I.A.No.378 of 2008 under Order VIII Rule 1 read with Section 151 C.P.C. before the trial Court with similar relief to condone the delay in filing counter and written statement. On 04.09.2008, the said application was dismissed on merits. Thereafter, on 13.02.2009, the suit was decreed ex parte. Aggrieved by the order, dated 04.09.2008 in I.A.No.378 of 2008, the petitioners preferred C.R.P.No.908 of 2009 before this Court and the same was dismissed as infructuous, as ex parte decree was already passed. For the same relief, petitioners filed the present application to condone the delay of 293 days in filing the written statement. So, by virtue of principles of resjudicata, once the order has become final, the petitioner cannot reagitate the same relief. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 4. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J August 06, 2010 MD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.718 OF 2010 August 06, 2010