HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 583 OF 2011 . DATED 26TH JULY, 2011 BETWEEN Duddupudi Rama Seethayamma …Petitioner And Sri Jujjavarapu Rama Rao and anr ….Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 583 OF 2011: ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is filed aggrieved by the order dated 08.09.2010 of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Fast Track Court, Kovvur, West Godavari District, dismissing I.A.No. 153 of 2008 in O.S.No. 89 of 2000 filed by the revision petitioner/plaintiff under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking to condone the delay of 647 days in filing the petition under Order IX Rule 9 CPC to set aside the default order dated 14.11.2006. The revision petitioner/plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit for recovery of certain amount on the strength of a promissory note, which was jointly executed by respondents/defendants on 30.10.1997 in her favour. When the case is posted on 14.11.2006 to obtain the signature of the second defendant/respondent for being sent for expert opinion, neither the revision petitioner/plaintiff appeared in person nor anybody represented on her behalf in the matter. As such, the trial Court dismissed the suit for default. To set aside the said default order, the revision petitioner/plaintiff filed the aforesaid application seeking to condone the delay in filing the petition under Order IX Rule 9 CPC, which was dismissed on the ground that the revision petitioner/plaintiff did not explain day-to-day delay and failed to show sufficient cause to condone such delay. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondents. Perused the case file. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in as much as the revision petitioner had undergone eye operation, she could not attend the Court on 14.11.2006 and that she could not file the petition seeking to set aside the default order in time due to her ill-health and old age ailments. He further submits that the delay occurred is neither willful nor wanton and therefore the Court below ought to have condoned the delay. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the revision petitioner failed to explain day-to-day delay properly in filing the petition to condone the delay in filing the petitioner under Order IX Rule 9 CPC to set aside the default order and that she failed to show sufficient cause to condone the delay occasioned in filing the said petition. 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, it is the case of the revision petitioner/plaintiff that she had undergone eye operation on 10.11.2006 and as such she could not attend the Court on 14.11.2006 the day on which the suit was posted to obtain the signatures of the second Defendant for being sent for expert opinion. It has been averred in the affidavit filed in support of the application that though the counsel appearing on behalf of the revision petitioner/plaintiff took time, however, the case was passed over and when the case was called in the afternoon session, the suit was dismissed for default as her counsel was called absent. The said averments have not been controverted by the respondents. The cause shown, in my opinion, constitutes a sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing the petition to set aside the default order. The Civil Revision Petition is therefore allowed, setting aside the order dated 14.11.2006 passed in I.A.No. 153 of 2008 in O.S.No. 89 of 2000. Consequently, the suit in O.S.No.89 of 200 is restored to the file of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Fast Tract Court, Kovvur, W.G.District , who shall adjudicate and dispose of the same expeditiously, keeping in view the fact that the suit is of the year 2000, by duly affording opportunity to all the parties. There shall be no order as to costs. ------------------------------------ -- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 26TH JULY, 2011. Msnro