- (1.)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 ex parte and the ex partedecree 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 about the ex parte decree. The previous advocate 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.