IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4861 of 2010 Between: Pesara Srinivas Reddy & 4 others .. Petitioners AND Sudireddy Linga Reddy .. Respondent The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4861 of 2010 ORDER: Heard Sri J. Prabhakar, learned counsel for the revision petitioners. The notice before admission sent to the respondent was stated to have been refused and the notice of the revision was also served on the learned counsel appearing for the respondent before the trial Court. In spite of waiting for a reasonable time, none entered appearance for the respondent. 2. The revision is directed against the order in I.A.No.543 of 2010 in O.S.No.261 of 2007, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Nalgonda, dated 26.08.2010, dismissing the application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, without costs. That petition was to condone the delay in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree. 3. It is the contention of the revision petitioners that the summons in the suit were served on the first defendant’s mother, an old lady who did not inform the first defendant about the receipt of summons. It was stated that the first defendant later died on 26.07.2008 and the revision petitioners are the legal representatives who were totally unaware of the suit proceedings. They claimed that it was only on receipt of the notices in E.P.No.77 of 2009 that they came to know about the ex parte decree on enquiry and hence, filed the petition to set aside the ex parte decree along with the petition for condonation of delay. 4. The respondent resisted the request for condonation of delay claiming that the petitioners did not explain the delay in filing the petition at least after receipt of notices in E.P.No.77 of 2009 and hence, the petition has no merits. 5. The trial Court rendered the impugned order firstly noting that there was no personal service of summons of the suit on the first defendant, but the summons were served on the first defendant’s mother. However, as the first revision petitioner was served with the notice in E.P.No.77 of 2009 on 17.02.2010 and the revision petitioners remained ex parte in the execution proceedings, the filing of the present petition after 3 ½ months on 29.05.2010 does not explain the delay. 6. The dismissal of the petition on that ground is challenged herein contending that the delay was actually only 60 days and not 777 days since the revision petitioners were not parties to the ex parte decree and it was the time taken to verify the earlier proceedings and move an application for an appropriate relief that resulted in the delay. 7. Sri J. Prabhakar, learned counsel for the revision petitioners desired that the delay may be condoned on imposition of appropriate terms taking a liberal view as per Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 8. The words ‘sufficient cause’ in Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, always receive a liberal interpretation keeping in view the principle that rules of procedure are intended to serve advancement of substantial justice and not to punish the parties for any technical lapses. No doubt, it is true that between the service of the notice in the execution petition and the filing of this petition along with the petition to set aside the ex parte decree, there was a gap of 3 ½ months with no explanation for each day’s delay but it should be remembered that the revision petitioners themselves were not parties to the suit and the ex parte decree was passed during the life of the first defendant whose legal representatives are the revision petitioners. While the revision petitioners 4 and 5 are minors, whose interest should be safeguarded by the Court, the revision petitioners having been compelled to cause verification of proceedings in the suit and the execution, on receiving the notices in the execution petition is not unnatural and the process might have taken some time. The delay is not abnormal and can be considered to be condoned on appropriate terms sufficient to compensate the inconvenience caused to the respondent by the inaction of the first defendant and his legal representatives so far. The suit was for recovery of money and the execution petition amount was stated to be more than Rs.60,000/- by Sri J. Prabhakar, learned counsel for the revision petitioners. The ex parte decree was also stated to have imposed the liability to pay the costs of the suit on the judgment debtors. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances, the delay can be considered to be condoned on deposit of the costs awarded by the decree against the judgment debtors and a further sum of Rs.25,000/- to the credit of the matter before the Executing Court which the respondent will be entitled to withdraw. 9. Accordingly, the order, dated 26.08.2010, in I.A.No.543 of 2010 in O.S.No.261 of 2007, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Nalgonda, is set aside and the said I.A.No.543 of 2010 will be allowed on deposit of the costs awarded by the decree against the judgment debtors and a further sum of Rs.25,000/- towards the decree debt to the credit of the matter before the Executing Court within four (4) weeks from the date of the order and in default, the petition shall stand dismissed. In the event of such deposit, the respondent is entitled to withdraw the same without furnishing any security. 10. The Civil Revision Petition is ordered, accordingly, without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 4th February, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4861 of 2010 Date: 4th February, 2011 KL