THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4816 of 2010 November 11, 2010 Between: Chundi Navaneethamma @ Sundi Navanaeethamma … Petitioner/Plaintiff And G.Madhavi Latha, W/o.Muni Suresh Kumar And others ... Respondents/Defendants THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4816 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is plaintiff in O.S.No.94 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti. The said suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction of suit schedules ‘A’ to ‘F’ was decreed ex parte. The respondents herein (defendants) moved I.A.No.202 of 2010 seeking condonation of delay of 38 days in filing application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for setting aside the ex parte decree. The petitioner opposed the application. By the impugned order dated 27.8.2010, the Court below condoned the delay on the ground that if the same is not done, it would result in substantial injustice to the defendants. In this revision, the Counsel for petitioner submits that the order of the Court below is erroneous. In that the defendants did not show sufficient cause for each day’s delay in filing application under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC and that the Court below has not applied mind. He also submits that as pleaded by the plaintiff, some of the defendants and their relatives purchased suit schedule property from the plaintiff after she obtained ex parte decree and, therefore, nothing remains in the hands of the plaintiff. It is now well settled that in an original proceeding or an appeal if a Court subordinate to the High Court condones the delay on considering sufficient cause, ordinarily the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 115 of CPC may not interfere in the manner (se e N.Balakrishnan v M.Krishna Murthy[1]). In this case, it appears, the plaintiff filed her affidavit in lieu of chief examination on 08.10.2009 and the matter was posted on 21.10.2009 for cross- examination. The defendants requested time. The matter was listed on 04.11.2009 and 02.12.2009. The matter could not be proceeded with as the Presiding Officer was on leave. When the matter was called on 22.12.2009, there was no representation, presumably by both the sides. In such background, the Court was bound to pass an order and instead of setting the defendants ex parte straight away ex parte decree was passed on 21.1.2010. This weighed with the Court below in condoning the delay of 38 days. Further the third defendant, Raghavulu, in the affidavit accompanying I.A.No.202 of 2010 pleaded that from the beginning of January 2010 he laid up in bed due to ill- health. This allegation remained uncontroverted. Therefore the Court below was justified in condoning the delay. The civil revision petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO,J) November 11, 2010. YS [1] (1998) 7 SCC 123 : AIR 1998 SC 3222