ORDER :

Defendant in the suit filed the above civil revision petition against order, dated 22.11.2022 passed in I.A.No.514 of 2022 in O.S.No.55 of 2017 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Yelamanchili.

2. Plaintiff filed O.S.No.55 of 2017 for recovery of amount on the strength of promissory note.

3. Defendant, by filing written statement, is contesting the suit.

4. When the suit was posted for cross examination of PW1, neither the defendant nor his counsel appeared. Suit was decreed ex-parte on 23.01.2019.

5. Pursuant to the decree, decree holder filed E.P No.44 of 2019. Pending the E.P, JDR filed the above application to condone delay of 1322 days in filing the petition to set-aside the ex-parte decree dated 23.01.2019.

6. In the affidavit filed in support of the application judgment debtor contended that he engaged advocate and gave instructions after receiving summons in execution petition and handed over the same to counsel, who in turn filed vakalath. Later, the application is filed to condone delay of 1322 days in filing petition to set-aside ex-parte decree.

7. Decree holder filed counter and opposed the application.

8. Trial court by order dated 22.11.2022 dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same the above revision is filed.

9. Heard Sri Venkateswarlu Sanisetty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.S.C. Bose, learned counsel for the respondent.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner, in fact explained the delay. However, trial Court without considering the explanation dismissed the application. He also would contend that petitioner being illiterate, is not aware of the Court procedure. He also would contend that for the fault of the advocate the client should not be suffered and hence prays to set aside the order of the trial Court.

11. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the order of the trial court.

12. The point for consideration is whether the petitioner showed sufficient cause to condone delay of 1322 days in filing petition to set-aside ex-parte decree dated 23.01.2019?

13. Suit O.S.No.55 of 2017 was filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.9,40,917/-. Plaintiff filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination and the matter was being adjourned from time to time for cross examination of PW-1. Defendant having engaged counsel failed to cross examination the witness. Defendant was set ex-parte and the Court below passed ex parte decree on 23.01.2017.

14. Pursuant to the decree, decree holder issued legal notice dated 10.04.2019 and the same was received by the judgment debtor on 13.04.2019.

15. E.P.No.44 of 2019 was filed by the Decree Holder. Judgment debtor received the notice on 25.11.2019. Since no counter was filed by judgment debtor, he was set ex parte. Subsequently, judgment debtor filed E.A.Nos.60 of 2020 and 61 of 2020 to set-aside the ex-parte order and to receive the counter, respectively. Both the applications were allowed on 28.01.2021.

16. The enquiry in execution petition was proceeded with and the matter was being adjourned from time to time. As can be seen from the order of the Court below judgment debtor also stated that the matter was likely to be compromised. On that ground E.P. underwent several adjournments and on some occasions, costs were also imposed. Later it seems judgment debtor changed advocate and filed interlocutory application under Order 21 Rule 26. The said application was returned.

17. At that juncture, JDR filed the present application to condone delay of 1322 days in filing petition to set aside the ex-party decree dated 23.01.2019.

18. Perusal of the above revision would disclose that judgment debtor is aware of the decree passed by the Court. In fact judgment debtor participated in execution proceedings at one point of time and also reported that the matter is likely to be compromise. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, which is filed to condone delay, judgment debtor tried to blame his advocate.

19. In Balwant Singh (dea