As can be seen, the submission of the petitioners/defendants 1 to 4 is that since their counsel did not inform them about the proceedings of the suit, they were kept in darkness and thereby they were unaware of the fact that their counsel did not file Vakalath and did not defend them in the suit and that they were ultimately set ex parte and an ex parte decree was passed against them. On that ground, they sought for condoning the delay of 1854 days. The contention of the respondent/plaintiff, as can be seen from his counter affidavit in I.A.No.130 of 2018, is that after institution of the present suit by the respondent/plaintiff, the mother of the petitioner Nos.2 and 4, namely, Ch.Radhamma, filed a suit against the respondent/plaintiff seeking perpetual injunction and the said suit was numbered as O.S.No.178 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda. They obtained ex parte temporary injunction against the respondent/plaintiff. Further, they again filed another suit O.S.No.198 of 2013 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda in respect of the present E.P., schedule property and again obtained an ex parte temporary injunction. The respondent/plaintiff filed a detailed counter affidavit and written statement stating that the suit land in O.S.No.178 of 2012 and O.S.No.198 of 2013 relate to the present suit property and the Junior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda, after hearing the interlocutory applications in both the suits passed status quo order. Thereafter, the suits were transferred to Additional Junior Civil Judge’s Court
