APHC010689242014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION Between: Vallur Changamma and Others Peda Palem Mari Muthu Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. S SUDARSHAN Counsel for the Respondent: 1. V SUDHAKAR REDDY 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3365] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2545/2014 Vallur Changamma and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Peda Palem Mari Muthu ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner(S): S SUDARSHAN Counsel for the Respondent: V SUDHAKAR REDDY [3365] THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR ...PETITIONER(S) ...RESPONDENT 2 THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2545/2014 The Court made the following Order: Heard learned counsel on both sides. 02 Perused the material available on record. 03. O.S.No.78 of 2009 before learned Senior Civil Judge, Sullurpet was filed with a prayer for mandatory injunction as well as perpetual injunction. There were two defendants. Despite service of notice they did not choose to appear and contest, therefore, the learned trial Court proceeded ex-parte. Over a period of time, the decree was put to execution in the E.P.No.50 of 2010. It was duly executed. It was around that time, the defendant took measures to see that the ex-parte decree was set aside and in that process there occurs 743 days delay and seeking condonation of it, they preferred I.A.No.275 of 2011 before the Court below. After the due contest, the learned Trial Court dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by it, the defendant preferred this revision. 04. Submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner do indicate that, it was serious sickness suffered by the 1st defendant 3 in the suit that caused all these inconvenience. The trail Court failed to appreciate the facts and sickness in proper manner. 05. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that sickness stated was never substantiated before the Court below and therefore correct view was taken by the court below and consequently no interference is required in this revision. 06. Having gone through the record, during enquiry, the appendix of the evidence is mentioned as Nil that makes the matter clear that the sickness pleaded was never attempted to be demonstrated by way of appropriate evidence. Even otherwise the observations in the Court below do indicate that the period of sickness is totally different from the period of pendency of the case. 07. Since, the view taken is based on the material on record, it is neither perverse nor illegal. Therefore, there is no cause for interference in this revision. In the result, this revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 4 As a sequel, Interlocutory applications, if any, pending shall stand closed. ________________________ Dr. V R K KRUPA SAGAR, J Dated: 28.03.2025 KKV 5 213 THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2545/2014 Dated: 28.03.2025 KKV