ORDER : LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J. This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 02.04.2024 passed in I.A.No.1381 of 2023 in AS(SR).No.6036 of 2023 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereby an application filed seeking to condone the delay of 285 days in filing the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 23.06.2020 passed in OS.No.2068 of 2015 on the file of V Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, was dismissed. 2. Heard Sri B.Mohan, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri K.V.Mallikarjun Rao, learned counsel for respondent. 3. The issue that falls for consideration before this Court in this Civil Revision Petition is whether the petitioners have shown sufficient and valid grounds for condonation of delay in filing the Appeal against the judgment passed by the trial Court. Therefore, the merits of the suit vis-à-vis either parties to the suit are not relevant and hence, the same are not adverted to. 4. The petitioners, in the affidavit filed in support of the application to condone the delay of 285 days in filing the Appeal against the judgment of the trial Court, have principally contended that summons were not served on them through the Court in OS.No.2068 of 2015, as such, they had no knowledge about filing of the suit, suit proceedings and passing of decree against them in the said suit. It was further averred that they came to know about the said suit only on 10.02.2023, that too, on being informed by their counsel, who is representing them in OS.No.921 of 2014 on the file of VIII Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, that there is a mention of OS.No.2068 of 2015 on the file of V Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in the counter-affidavit filed in IA.No.568 of 2019 in IA.No.792 of 2016 in OS.No.921 of 2014 and hence, the delay occurred in filing the Appeal and sought to condone the same. 5. 5. The respondent filed counter affidavit denying the averments made by the petitioners in the application and contended that the petitioners were well aware of pendency of OS.No.2068 of 2015; that she has also given the list of proceedings with respective dates in OS.Nos.921 of 2014 and 1116 of 2014 on the file of VIII Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, in which there was specific mention about the pendency of OS.No.2068 of 2015, however, the petitioners remained silent and pretend to be unaware of filing of O.S.No.2068 of 2015 and therefore, there is deliberate negligence on the part of the petitioners in filing the Appeal and hence, the delay cannot be condoned. 6. The First Appellate Court, taking into consideration the pleadings of both the parties and the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties, has declined to condone the delay by the impugned order. Questioning the same, the present Revision Petition is filed. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the First Appellate Court failed to consider the fact that in OS.No.2068 of 2015, notice was not served on the petitioners through Court or registered post and further, publication of notice by way of substitute service under Order V Rule 20 CPC is not sufficient service, and has erroneously passed the impugned order declining to condone the delay. Learned counsel further contended that substantial rights of the petitioners are involved in the suit and as such, the First Appellate Court ought to have condoned the delay at least by imposing costs. By contending thus, learned counsel prayed to allow the Revision Petition. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the petitioners were well aware of filing of suit in O.S.No.2068 of 2015 against them as there is specific mention about the same in the proceedings/material papers that were filed in other suits pending between the same parties i.e., in O.S.No.921 of 2014 and 1116 of 2014 and hence, the plea of the petitioners that they got knowledge about the suit-OS.No.2068 of 2015 only on 10.02.2023 is utterly false and cannot be sustained. Learned counsel, therefore, contended that the First Appellate Court passed the impugned order on appreciating the entire facts and it has rightly concluded that the reasons assigned by the petitioners for condoning the delay are not sustainable and hence, the impugned order warrants no interference by this Court. 9. This Court has gave its earnest consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties and perused the entire record. 10. It is trite to note that in the grounds raised in this Revision Petition, the petitioners have themselves stated that the respondent got the notice published in newspaper by way of substitute service. It is relevant to note that a party will be permitted by the Court to take notice by substitute service by way of paper publication only on being satisfied that the party seeking to take substitute service has taken all efforts to serve notice on the other party, but in vain. In such an event, the plea of the petitioners that no summons were served on them in O.S.No.2068 of 2015 and as such, they were unaware of the said suit proceedings is untenable. That apart, the respondent contended that in the proceedings in suits in O.S.No.921 of 2014 and OS.No.1116 of 2014, which are between the same parties as that of OS.No.2068 of 2015, particularly, in the written statements filed by her in the said suits, there is a mention about filing of the suit-OS.No.2068 of 2015, and further, the factum of suit-OS.No.2068 of 2015 is also mentioned in the order dated 25.01.2017 passed by VIII Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District in IA.No.792 of 2016 in OS.No.921 of 2014. The respondent was even precise in giving the paragraph numbers in her written statements in O.S.Nos.921 of 2014 and OS.No.1116 of 2014, which were filed on 27.04.2015 and 16.06.2015, in which there is a specific mention about the suit-OS.No.2068 of 2015. These facts were not denied by the petitioners. Admittedly, the said suits-OS.Nos.921 of 2014 and 1116 of 2014 were filed by the petitioners and as such, they being represented by a counsel cannot plead ignorance of contents of the written statements filed in the said suits. 11. The respondent stated that even in the order dated 25.01.2017 passed in IA.No.792 of 2016 in OS.No.921 of 2014, there is mention of the suit-OS.No.2068 of 2015 at para-8 thereof. 12. 11. The respondent stated that even in the order dated 25.01.2017 passed in IA.No.792 of 2016 in OS.No.921 of 2014, there is mention of the suit-OS.No.2068 of 2015 at para-8 thereof. 12. The petitioners have not rebutted the aforesaid facts. 13. When it is the case of the petitioners that they got knowledge of the suit-OS.No.2068 of 2015, only when their counsel informed them that there is mention of OS.No.2068 of 2015 in the counter affidavit filed in IA.No.568 of 2019 in IA.No.792 of 2016 in OS.No.921 of 2014, it is not known as to why the petitioners were not informed by their counsel earlier about the suit-OS.No.2068 of 205 when there is mention of the same in the written statements filed by the respondent in OS.Nos.921 of 2014 and 1116 of 2014 and also in the order dated 25.01.2017 passed in IA.No.792 of 2016 in O.S.No.921 of 2014. The reasons offered by the petitioner for condonation of delay does not inspire confidence of this Court and hence, are not believable. 14. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the grounds pleaded by the petitioners for condoning the delay cannot be countenanced and are believable and therefore, they are not entitled for indulgence of this Court in condoning the delay. 15. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. 16. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.