HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5355 of 2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the plaintiff in O.S.No.964 of 2005 on the file of the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, aggrieved by order, dated 21.08.2010, passed in I.A.No.1953 of 2008. The petitioner-plaintiff filed the suit seeking the relief of perpetual injunction with regard to the suit schedule property. The suit was dismissed for default on 30.04.2008. Inasmuch as there was a delay of 75 days in filing the restoration application, the petitioner has filed an application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act seeking to condone the delay in filing the application for restoration. By the impugned order, the Court below on the ground that the day-to-day delay has not been explained rejected the said application. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the order under challenge and the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of I.A.No.1953 of 2008 before the Court below. In the affidavit, filed in support of the application in I.A.No.1953 of 2008, the petitioner has categorically stated that when the matter was listed on 30.04.2008 for trial, she did not attend the Court as she was seriously bed ridden. Even subsequently also, she could not contact her advocate immediately to move the application for restoration of the suit as she was not keeping good health and was unable to move from the house. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the delay was properly explained, the Court below without any valid reasons rejected the application. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioner was not diligent in prosecuting the suit several times on earlier occasions also and that, when the matter was listed on 30.04.2008 for trial, as the learned counsel for the petitioner was absent, the matter was passed over and kept upto 2 pm., and thereafter, the suit was dismissed for default. It is to be noticed that in the affidavit, filed in support of the interlocutory application, it is categorically stated by the petitioner that she could not attend the Court on 30.04.2008 as she was seriously bed ridden and that subsequently also, she could not contact her advocate immediately as she was not keeping good health and was unable to move from the house. It is borne out from the record that earlier, as the petitioner reported not ready for trial, the matter was adjourned on nearly five occasions. However, the suit came to be dismissed for default on 30.04.2008. When an affidavit is filed by the petitioner stating that on the said date, as she was seriously ill she could not attend the Court and subsequently also, she could not contact her advocate immediately to file an application seeking to set aside the said dismissal order, there is no reason for not accepting such affidavit filed by the party. Taking into account the explanation filed by the petitioner and also as the delay is only 75 days in filing the application for restoration of the suit, I think it is a fit case to condone the delay by compensating the respondent-defendant with costs. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed on condition of the petitioner paying costs of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) to the learned counsel for the respondent within a period of two months from today and file a memo to that effect into this Court. ___________________________ JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY 16th December 2011 DR