C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J.

( 1 ) I. A. NO. 352 of 2002 in O. S. No. 1416 of 2000 filed by the petitioner seeking condonation of the delay of 191 days in filing a petition under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, was dismissed by the Court below by the order under revision on the ground that the delay is not properly explained. This revision is preferred questioning the said order. (2)The reason for the delay as stated in the affidavit of the revision petitioner is his being busy with official work . Being busy with official work , without mentioning what he was doing during the Public Holidays, Second Saturdays and Sundays that were there in those 191 days cannot be said to be a proper explanation for the delay. (3)The order of the trial Court shows that in the suit filed in 2000, time was finally extended for filing Written Statement till 09. 07. 2001. Since on that day also Written Statement was not filed, revision petitioner was set ex parte and ex parte decree was passed subsequently. Very significantly petitioner did not even allege that he is filing the Written Statement along with the petition filed under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. Even a very busy employee in an office with very busy official work

Click Here to Read the rest of this document