This Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioners in I. A. NO.88 of 2004 in O.S.No.102 of 1996 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem.

2. The petitioners are defendants 2 to 4 in the above suit filed for specific performance of an agreement of sale executed by their mother. They were set exparte and the ex parte decree was passed on 11-10-2002. The petitioners came to know about the ex parte decree after receipt of the notices in the E.P. filed on the basis of the said decree. The petitioners contended that though they engaged an Advocate to represent their case, he failed to represent the same, therefore, they were set ex parte and after knowing about the decree after receipt of the summons in the E.P., they filed an Application to set aside the ex parte decree and another Application to condone the delay of 409 days in filing the said Application, covered by I.A.No.88 of 2004. The Respondents opposed the Application and the lower Court dismissed the said Application. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendants preferred the present Revision Petition challenging the order of the lower Court.

3. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the petitioners mentioned that they engaged an Advocate to represent their case and the written statement was filed. The Advocate informed that he would intimate the date when the evidence is going to be recorded. When the chief-examination of P.Ws.1 and 2 is over, the counsel for the petitioners reported no instructions, therefore, the Court treated the cross-examination of the petitioners as nil. Later P.W.3 was examined in chief and the matter was posted for hearing of the Advocate and they were set ex parte and ex parte decree was passed on 11-10-2002. They further mentioned that after receipt of the notice, they approached the previous Advocate and asked about the E.P. notice. Then, he reported the petitioners 3bout the ex parte decree. The previous A.dvocate of the petitioners did not cross-examine P.Ws.1 to 3 and did not oppose the marking of the exhibits. The petitioners are expected to know about the progress of the suit through their counsel only. Since the counsel did not inform them, they could not make their appearance.

4. It is the specific version of the petitioners that when their Advocate reported no instructions on the date of examination of the plaintiffs' witnesses, the learned Senior Civil judge ought to have proceeded with the cross-examination or write a letter to them about the progress of the trial, but he failed to do so.

5. The lower court observed that it is a matter of 1996. The respondents 2 and 3 and the petitioners are residents of Eluru. The suit was filed subsequent to the death of the mother of the petitioners. The second defendant was residing at Pippara. The counsel for the defendants filed a memo reporting no instructions on 24-9-2002 after the chief-examination of P.Ws.1 and 2. The second respondent was set ex parte in the suit long back after making publication. The petitioners did not explain the delay. The lower Court further observed that the petitioners are not properly prosecuting the case and they failed to evince any interest from the date of filing of the written statement till they were set ex parte. The reasons given in the affidavit are not cogent and convincing and the petitioners did not even approach the Court in an identified matter and the burden is on the petitioners to explain the delay, but they are not expected to forget the suit proceedings for years together. There are no bona fides in the petition. The Court does not find any merits in the petition. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

6. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners submitted that the petitioners are the ladies and they have no male assistance. Taking advantage of that, the plaintiffs obtained the document and used the same as an agreement of sale and that their Advocate did not inform them about the adjournment days and passin