THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.R.P.No. 3484 of 2010 ORDER: The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 26.04.2010 in I.A.No.1350 of 2008 in O.S.No.114 of 2003 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad condoning the delay of 615 days in filing the application for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 23.01.2007 passed in favour of the revision petitioner. It appears that the suit was filed for recovery of some retirement benefits and salary and also for damages when the revision petitioner worked with the defendants. In spite of several adjournments, the defendants have not filed the written statement and subsequently they were set ex parte and an ex parte decree was passed on 23.01.2007. Subsequently, the present application was filed to condone the delay of 615 days in filing the application for setting aside the ex parte decree. The lower Court after considering the material on record and also considering the citations relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners therein, allowed the application. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision is filed. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that the defendants are aware of the suit proceedings and the written statement was not filed and there are no sufficient grounds to condone the delay and merely because the defendant is a State Social Welfare Board, no special concession can be given in condoning the delay. However, it is brought to the notice of this Court that when earlier the revision petitioner has filed petition for execution of the decree and in that this Court has directed for payment of the decreetal amount and Rs.4,00,000/- was said to have been deposited and the same was said to have been withdrawn by the revision petitioner, who is the decree holder. It is true that no special concession can be given to the State but at the same time no matter can be decided without giving opportunity to the other side to establish the liability. In this case, apart from the components of amount payable to the decree holder, the liability is also sought to be fastened for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards damages. There are no grounds of attacking the delay on the part of the judgment-debtors for any malafides. As some amount of the decree has already been deposited and received by the petitioner, no prejudice or adverse effect is likely to be caused, if a full-fledged trial is conducted by the lower Court. It is an acceptable principle that the condonation of the delay should be liberally taken and there can be no straight jacket formula as to what is the sufficient ground and what is not a sufficient ground but it is only an endeavour of the Court to see that the matters are decided on merits rather than as an ex parte decision. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, I do not find that the discretion exercised by the lower Court, when there is no proof of malafides on the part of the judgment-debtors, can be said to be bad and an opportunity has to be given to the judgment- debtors. Therefore, I do not find any substantial reasons to interfere with the order of the lower Court. However, the lower Court shall dispose of the suit before the end of December, 2011 and if the ex parte decree has not been set aside, the lower Court shall set aside the decree and the judgment-debtors, who are the defendants, shall file the written statement within a month from this date and thereafter the trial shall be proceeded with. With the above direction, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J 19.08.2011 Note: Issue cc within 3 days. B/o. MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.R.P.No. 3484 of 2010 DATE: 19-08-2011 MR