APHC010010292026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3299] FRIDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 295/2026 Between: 1. MACHUPALLI PRAKASH, S/O M.APPARAO, AGE 37 YEARS, R/O. NEW STREET, JEYPORE, KORAPUT DISTRICT, ODISHA STATE, NOW PRESENT CAMP AT VISAKHAPATNAM ...PETITIONER AND 1. ROKKAM GOURI SANKAR, s/o R.Rama Rao, Age 52 Years, R/o 43-4-15, TF-403, Andhra Palace, Railway New Colony, Visakhapatnam ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SREEMANNARAYANA VATTIKUTI Counsel for the Respondent: 1. The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 295 /2026 ORDER: Heard Sri V.Sreemannarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is filed by the defendant. 3. The plaintiff/respondent filed O.S.No.293 of 2021, which was decreed ex parte on 21.10.2021. He filed I.A.No.464 of 2024 under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C, to set aside the ex parte decree along with an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 4. By order dated 22.10.2025, the Court has dismissed the petition, observing that the petitioner failed to show sufficient cause to condone the delay of 974 days. 5. Challenging the said order, the present C.R.P is filed. 6. The record shows that the suit was filed for recovery of money based on promissory note. On 29.11.2021, notice was issued to the present petitioner. In spite of service, he failed to appear and remained absent. There was no representation made on his behalf. 3 The Court adjourned the matter on many dates and finally, he was set ex parte on 21.10.2021 and thereafter, the ex parte decree was passed on 29.11.2021. 7. There was delay of 974 days and the cause stated was due to covid reasons. The covid was long over. The application itself was filed in the year 2024 on 22.07.2024. 8. The learned Trial Court has observed that the petitioner received notices from the Court and has not mentioned any specific reason for his non-appearance. He had the knowledge of the dates fixed in the suit and had sufficient time to appear and answer the claim. But he remained absent. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner could not appear due to covid reasons. Even if it be so, he ought to have filed an application, immediately after the covid was over, but the application itself has been filed after 924 days on 22.07.2024. 10. This Court does not find any sufficient cause mentioned in the application. The cause mentioned does not inspire confidence nor is a sufficient cause as the covid was long over. 11. I do not find any illegality in the order. 12. The Civil Revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 4 As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J Date: 06.02.2026 Pab