( 1 ) THIS petition is filed to condone the delay of 184 days in filing the petition to recall the judgment in S. A. No. 308 of 1992, dated 3-9-2003. ( 2 ) PETITIONER filed O. S. No. 138 of 1987 seeking correction of his date of birth in the records of the respondent. The trial Court decreed the suit and the said decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court. In s. A. No. 308 of 1992 preferred by the respondent, as there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner, after hearing the counsel for the respondent (appellant), this court, by the judgment dated 3-9-2003, set aside the decrees and judgments of the courts below and dismissed the suit. On 25-4-2005 petitioner filed a petition to recall the judgment dated 3-9-2003 in the SA no. 308 of 1992 along with this petition to condone the delay of 184 days in filing the recall petition. ( 3 ) THE allegations, in brief, in the affidavit of the petitioner, filed in support of this application are, when the second appeal came up for hearing, since the Advocate, whose name appeared in the cause list, had given up his vakalat and since he had no information about the date of hearing of the case and since he was suffering from eye and other problems there as no representation on his behalf, and when he came over to hyderabad on 31-3-2005 for engaging a new counsel he came to know about the second appeal being allowed and thereby there is a delay of 184 days in filing the recall petition and so that said delay may be condoned. ( 4 ) RESPONDENT resisted the petition inter alia contending that the delay in filing the recall petition is more than 500 days but not 184 days as contended and since no valid grounds to condone such a long delay are mentioned the delay cannot be condoned. ( 5 ) THE point for consideration is whether the delay in filing the petition to recall the judgment in S. A. No. 308 of 1992 can be condoned. ( 5 ) THE point for consideration is whether the delay in filing the petition to recall the judgment in S. A. No. 308 of 1992 can be condoned. ( 6 ) THE main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the petitioner was suffering from various ailments and had also undergone eye operation and was advised bed rest for a considerable length of time, he could not be present in the Court when the case was taken up for hearing, and the various Medical Certificates produces by the petitioner bear testimony to the fact of his undergoing treatment and so, the delay of 184 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte judgment in the second appeal may be condoned. ( 7 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the averments in the affidavit of the petitioner, filed in support of the petition are silent about the date of giving up of vakalat by the earlier Counsel for the petitioner, and that the said affidavit also does not disclose the reasons for the petitioner not taking steps to engage another Counsel immediately after his earlier Counsel gave upto vakalat and since the second appeal was heard in part on 25-8-2003 and was posted to 26-8-2003 and to 27-8-2003 for hearing the counsel for petitioner and for judgment and was again adjourned to 3-9-2003, when the judgment was pronounced, petition to recall the said judgment filed on 25-4-2005 is hopelessly barred by time and so the petitioner has to explain the reasons for the long delay of more than 500 days, but not for 184 days, as assumed by the petitioner, and since no grounds, muchless valid grounds, are mentioned in the affidavit of the petitioner to condone such length of delay the petition is liable to be dismissed. ( 8 ) THE following are the Medical certificates produced by the petitioner : (i) Certificate, dated 30-9-2004 issued by dr. K. Karunakar, Consultant physician, Arpitha Hospital, Khaleelwadi, nizamabad. It shows that the petitioner was treated as an out-patient from 25-5-2004 to 30-9-2004. The disease for which the petitioner had undergone the treatment as out patient is not known from the said certificate, because, the disease mentioned in the column relating to diagnosis is scored of. (ii) Prescription, dated 25-5-2004 issued by the Arpitha Hospital. It shows that the petitioner was treated as an out-patient from 25-5-2004 to 30-9-2004. The disease for which the petitioner had undergone the treatment as out patient is not known from the said certificate, because, the disease mentioned in the column relating to diagnosis is scored of. (ii) Prescription, dated 25-5-2004 issued by the Arpitha Hospital. (iii) Complete Blood Picture report dated 25-5-2004. (iv) Estimation of Blood Urea Report, dated 25-5-2004. (v) Report on Analysis of Urine, dated 25-5-2004. (vi) Prescription, dated 29-11-2004 of arpitha Hospital. (vii) Chit dated 3-10-2004 of Arpitha hospital. (viii) Certificate issued by Dr. G. Anil kumar of Kala Eye Hospital, dated 2-4-2005 stating that petitioner underwent an operation for cataract in the right eye on 3-3-2004 and was discharged on 4-3-2004 and was advised rest for 40 days. (ix) Record sheet maintained by Kala hospital, dated 25-2-2004. (x) Reports from Bharathi Pathological laboratory, dated 3-3-2004 and (xi) Prescription given to petitioner by the doctor in the Kala Hospital on 25-2-2004. ( 9 ) ALL the above eleven documents produced by the petitioner are of the year 2004. As per Article 123 of Limitation act, an application for recalling the order disposing of an appeal ex parte has to be filed within one month from the date of decree, and if no notice of the appeal was served, the date of knowledge of the decree. Since petitioner has knowledge of the filing of the appeal and had in fact put in appearance through an advocate, he has to file the petition for recalling the order in the second appeal within 30 days from 3-9-2003 i. e. , date of disposal of the second appeal. Since petitioner did not file the petition within one month from 3-9-2003 he has to explain the reasons for the delay from 3-10-2003 till the date of filing of the petition to set aside the ex parte decree on 25-4-2005. ( 10 ) ONE of the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that since the petitioner applied for certified copies of the decree and judgment in appeal, the time taken for obtaining those copies also has to be excluded in computing the period of limitation. ( 10 ) ONE of the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that since the petitioner applied for certified copies of the decree and judgment in appeal, the time taken for obtaining those copies also has to be excluded in computing the period of limitation. Question of excluding the time taken for obtaining the certified copies of the judgment and decree does not arise in this case, because no copy of the decree or judgment need be filed with a petition under Rule 21 of Order 41 cpc. ( 11 ) THE case of the petitioner, as seen from the allegations in his affidavit filed in support of the application, is that his advocate whose name appeared in the cause list had given up his vakalat. The date of his giving up the vakalat is not mentioned. The reasons for the petitioner not taking immediate steps to engage another Counsel are also not explained. The averments in the affidavit of the petitioner disclose that the alleged handing over of the case filed by his Counsel to the petitioner took place even prior to 3-9-2003, and that petitioner came over to hyderabad to enquire about the case only on 31-3-2005. The reason for the petitioner not taking steps to engage a Counsel for more than 1 1/2 years after his earlier counsel s alleged handing over the records are also not explained in the affidavit of the petitioner. As stated earlier, all the documents produced by the petitioner are from may 2004 onwards. No document is produced by the petitioner to show that he was under treatment from September 2003 to April 2004. What prevented him from engaging a Counsel immediately after his earlier Counsel returned the records and why he did not come to Hyderabad from september 2003 to April 2004 also are not explained. Therefore it cannot be said that the petitioner explained the delay of more than 500 days in filing the petition for setting aside the decree dated 3-9-2003. ( 12 ) THOUGH the Counsel for both the parties raised contentions with regard to the merits of the appeal also I do not wish to consider those contentions because merits of the case are irrelevant for disposing of this petition. ( 12 ) THOUGH the Counsel for both the parties raised contentions with regard to the merits of the appeal also I do not wish to consider those contentions because merits of the case are irrelevant for disposing of this petition. That apart, if according to the petitioner, the decree and judgment are not sustainable on merits, the remedy of the petitioner is to question the same in an appeal. ( 13 ) SINCE the petitioner failed to explain reasons, much less valid reasons, for condoning the delay from October 2003 to april 2005, I find no ground to condone the long delay of more than 500 days and so, the petition is liable to be dismissed. ( 14 ) HENCE the petition is dismissed. No costs.