Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J.—This civil revision petition is preferred by the petitioners in I.A.No.187 of 2011 in O.S.No.222 of 2006. I.A.No.187 of 2011 was preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 1653 days in filing Interlocutory Application for setting aside the ex parte decree. I.A.No.187 of 2011 has been preferred on 25.02.2011.

2. The petitioners are the wife and son of Sri Bommadevu Manikyalu, the sole defendant in the suit O.S.No.222 of 2006. The first respondent Sri Gundubilli Subba Rao is the plaintiff in the suit. The plaintiff is the son-in-law of the defendant. The defendant Sri Manikyalu is described to have died on 27.07.2008.

3. The suit is instituted on 28.06.2006 seeking to recover a sum of Rs. 75,000/- together with interest at 24% thereon on the foot of a promissory note said to have been executed by the defendant on 22.03.2005. Alongwith the suit, the three documents were also filed. The first document is the original promissory note executed by the defendant on 22.03.2005. The document is in the handwriting of Sri Manepalli Eswara Rao. It was executed in the presence of (witnesses) one (1) Sakileti Venkata Ramana Rao (2) Sri Ramoju Srinivasarao. The second document filed was the legal notice got issued by the plaintiff on 17.06.2006 demanding repayment of the loan amount. This legal notice was sent by registered post with acknowledgment due. The third document filed along with the suit was the registered postal cover through which the legal notice was got issued, returned by the defendant on 20.06.2006. Along with the suit, I.A.No.956 of 2006 was filed for attachment of land of an extent of 0.50 cents in Sy.No.85/1 and land of an extent of 0.74 cents situate in Sy.No.85/3 of Vannepudi Village, Gollaprolu Mandal, East Godavari District. It appears, when the Government Amin tried to deliver the summons in the suit, the defendant refused to receive the summons. The notice issued in the interlocutory application 956 of 2006 in O.S.No.222 of 2006 for attachment of certain properties before judgment was also refused. The Court Amin filed a report that since the defendant has refused to receive the suit summons, he affixed them on the front door of the residential premises of the defendant and the notice of the proposed attachment before judgment was exhibited at the land in question and the gist of the notice in that regard was also got published in that village by beat of tom-tom. The Secretary of the Gram Panchayat has certified about the same. In view of the refusal to receive the summons, the defendant was set ex parte. A decree was passed on 03.08.2006 in O.S.No.222 of 2006 directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.97,650/- together with subsequent interest at 12% per annum from the date of the suit (28.06.2006) till the date of decree (03.08.2006) and thereafter at 6% per annum till realization of Rs.75,000/- (principal amount). The defendant was also directed to pay a sum of Rs.6,255 towards costs. The plaintiff has taken out execution proceedings in E.P.No.14 of 2010. E.A.No.127 of 2010 was filed therein proposing to bring on record Sri Bommadevu Kameswara Rao, the second petitioner herein, as a legal representative of the deceased defendant Sri Bommadevu Manikyalu. The notice issued by the Junior Civil Judges Court, Pitapuram (the executing Court) in E.A.No.127 of 2010 in E.P.No.14 of 2010 in O.S.No.222 of 2006 is placed at page No.39 of the paper book filed in this revision. The notice was set and issued by the Court on 29.09.2010 fixing the date of hearing as 28.10.2010.

4. The second petitioner herein has sworn to the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.187 of 2011 seeking condonation of delay. In paragraph No.2 of the said affidavit, it was stated inter alia as under:

5. “...My father was an illiterate countryman. The suit summons were appears to be managed and not served to him. As such he did not contest the suit, he was set ex parte and there after an ex pa