THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY C.R.P.No.2672 of 2011 ORDER This revision is directed against the order dated 28-3-2011 passed in I.A.No.558 of 2000 in O.S.No.122 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet at Kadapa District , whereby and whereunder learned Principal Senior Civil Judge dismissed the petition filed by the defendant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The respondent is the plaintiff and whereas the petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.122 of 2008. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of amount due on a promissory note executed by the defendant. He also got the amounts of the defendant lying in the Syndicate Bank, Kadapa attached before judgment. The suit came be decreed on 3-2-2009. The plaintiff filed E.P.No.2 of 2010 seeking a direction to the Garnishee to deposit the attached amount. The Garnishee deposited the decretal amount before the Senior Civil Judge Court, Rajampet on 2-8-2010. The defendant filed a petition to set aside the ex parte decree along with delay condonation petition on 10-3-2010. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that he came to know of the attachment two days prior to the filing of the application to set aside the ex parte decree. For better appreciation, I may refer paragraph No.2 of the affidavit filed in support of the petition and it reads as hereunder: “I am not received any suit summons in the above said suit as such I am worked contract employee in Telecom Department at Badvel and also I am not ascertain the publication if any made in the paper. When I received the information from the Syndicate Bank, Kadapa authorities concerned to attachment before judgment just 2 days back when I contacted to the banking authorities. Prior to that I have no any knowledge about the suit proceedings on 2-3-2010 I came down to Rajampet and searched about the proceedings of the suit and came to knowledge that I was set ex parte on 3-2-2009 I was called absent and pleased to pass ex parte orders against me, basing on paper publication.” The plaintiff filed counter resisting the delay condonation petition. The plaintiff averred in the counter that the defendant has not offered any sufficient reasons for condoning the delay of 363 days. Learned Senior Civil Judge on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties came to the conclusion that the defendant failed to offer any sufficient reasons to condone the delay and thereby, proceeded to dismiss the petition by order dated 28-03- 2011. Hence, this revision. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 5-8-2011. The respondent entered appearance through a counsel. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner-defendant shifted his house to Badvel since his lands have been acquired for Somasila project and has been working as contract employee in the Telecom Department at Badwel. A further submission has been made that the petitioner is not aware of any publication that has been taken out by the plaintiff in the suit. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner came to know of the decree only two days prior to 3-3-2010 when he visited Syndicate Bank, Kadapa, where he has account. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantanag and another vs., Mst Katiji and others[1], wherein the Supreme Court held that the legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting section 5 of the Indian Limitation act of 1963 in order to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on ‘merits’. The expression “sufficient cause” employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice that being the life purpose for the existence of the institution of Courts. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff submits that the petitioner-defendant knowing fully well of the suit proceedings avoided to contest the suit and therefore, he cannot be permitted to state at this distance of time that he came to know about the decree few days prior to filing of the petition under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. I have given my earnest consideration to the contentions advanced by the counsel appearing for the parties. It is a matter of record that notice of summons to the defendant came to be served in the suit by way of publication. In the cause title, the defendant has been shown as resident of Kommuru Village, Nandaluru Mandal. Indeed the petitioner-defendant has been residing at Badvel. The guiding principle in considering the petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is that justice should not be sacrificed on the alter of technicalities but at the same time the Court should not loose sight of the statutory requirement of sufficient cause and condone the delay on equitable grounds. As on this day, the petitioner has been residing at Badvel and working as a contract employee in the Telecom Department. In the suit his address has been shown as resident of Kommuru Village. The petitioner-defendant has specifically pleaded in the affidavit filed in support of the petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act that he left Kommuru Village and has been residing at Badvel. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the delay of 363 days can be condoned subject to the petitioner-defendant paying costs of Rs.10,000/-. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 28-3-2011 passed in I.A.No.558 of 2010 in O.S.No.122 of 2008 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet, Kadapa District, subject to the petitioner-defendant depositing costs of Rs.10,000/- to the credit of the suit viz., O.S.No.122 of 2008, within a period of two weeks from today, failing which the impugned order shall stand confirmed. As and when the amount is deposited, the respondent-plaintiff is entitled to withdraw the same, __________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY,J rkk Dated: 15-11-2011 Note: Issue CC by three days. [1] AIR 1987 SC 1353