HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3654 OF 2011 . DATED 26TH DECEMBER, 2011. BETWEEN Sri Pachipulusu R.B.Siva Narayana …Petitioner And Nalluri Somasekhar ….Respondent. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3654 OF 2011: ORDER: The petitioner/plaintiff filed the present Civil Revision Petition aggrieved by the order dated 01.06.2011 whereby the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Eluru, West Godavari District allowed the petition filed by the respondent/defendant in I.A.No. 1394 of 2007 in O.S.No. 44 of 2005 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking to condone the delay of 418 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree dated 26.4.2006. Heard. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the respondent/defendant himself had full knowledge and through his father about the decree passed in the aforesaid suit and the subsequent proceedings that took place in regard thereto. He submitted that the impugned application to condone the delay was filed after the suit property was delivered to the auction purchaser pursuant to the execution proceedings initiated by the petitioner/plaintiff in respect of the decree dated 26.4.2006. He further submitted that albeit the respondent/defendant got full knowledge about the notices in execution proceedings and that delivery of the property to the auction purchaser, he did not choose to take steps to resist the same. He further submitted that the impugned petition is filed only to harass the petitioner/plaintiff and there are no bona fides on the part of the respondent/defendant to condone the delay in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree dated 26.4.2006. The learned Counsel for the respondent/defendant, on the other hand supported the order under revision and prayed that the Civil Revision Petition may be dismissed. Admittedly, in the suit filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for recovery of the alleged amount based on the strength of promissory note, the respondent/defendant was set ex parte and the suit was decreed ex parte on 26.4.2006. Thereafter, the revision petitioner/plaintiff filed execution proceedings in EP.No. 183 of 2006 and the suit schedule property was brought to sale and sale was held on 2.7.2007. On 18.7.2007 the respondent/defendant filed the impugned petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 418 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree dated 26.4.2006. It appears that during the pendency of the said application, on 18.11.2008 sale certificate was issued to the auction purchaser and possession was handed over to him on 25.2.2009. Though the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff contended that the defendant intentionally avoided to receive the summons, the material on record would reveal that the same were returned for want of full address. The plaintiff had taken out substituted service in Janata news paper, however, it appears that the same was not noticed by the respondent/defendant. The version of the respondent/defendant that he came to know about the suit proceedings through his lease holder could have been believed by the Court below on the ground that the summons and substitute service were not within the knowledge of the respondent/defendant. Time and again, the Apex Court and this Court held that the expression ‘sufficient cause’ laid down in Section 5 of the Limitation Act must receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice and generally delays be condoned in the interest of justice where gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fide is not imputable to the party seeking condonation of delay. Law of limitation has been enacted to serve the interests of justice and not to defeat it and as such the Courts should adopt a pragmatic approach while exercising discretion under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. In the case on hand, the material on record would clearly reveal that the summons issued by the Court on the addresses furnished by the respondent/plaintiff were not served on the petitioner/defendant. It is further to be noted that the substituted service taken out in the Janata news paper was also not noticed by the respondent/defendant. In the affidavit filed in support of the impugned petition, it was averred that the respondent/plaintiff obtained ex parte attachment order and that no notice and summons were served on him. The material on record would also supports the same. In as much as the respondent/defendant has leased out of the suit schedule property to the lease holder, he came to know about the auction of the suit property through the lease holder, which appears to be believable and constitutes a ‘sufficient cause’ as laid down under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Court below considering all these aspects, rightly allowed the impugned application in order to afford an opportunity to the respondent/defendant to defend his case and to have the adjudication of the lis on merits. I do not see any illegality or infirmity in the order of the Court below warranting inference in this revision petition. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. -------------------------------------- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 26th December, 2011. Msnro