IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA C.R.P.NO : 3828 OF 2009 Between: Y.Thammaiah and others. ..... PETITIONER AND Shriram Chits (P) Limited, Mahaboobnagar and another. .....RESPONDENT(S) HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA C.R.P.No. 3828 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners herein are the defendants 2 to 4 in O.S.No.84 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge at Mahaboobnagar, and they approached this Court and filed this revision petition questioning the orders dated 05-08-2009 made in I.A.No.170 of 2009 in O.S.No.84 of 2007. 2. The brief facts are that the 1st respondent-plaintiff filed the suit against the petitioners and the 2nd respondent-D-1, for recovery of certain amounts. Though the petitioners initially appeared in the suit, subsequently, on account of their absence, they were set ex parte and an ex parte decree also was passed in favour of the 1st respondent-plaintiff. Coming to know of the decree, the petitioners approached the trial Court and filed a petition under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex parte decree, dated 23-04-2009. As there was delay of about 41 days in filing the set aside petition, the present application i.e. I.A.No.170 of 2009 in O.S.No.84 of 2007 was filed requesting the trial Court to condone the delay. But, however, the trial Court dismissed the delay condone petition for the reason that there are no tenable grounds for condoning the delay. Questioning the same, the present revision petition is filed. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 4. The suit is for realization of amount of more than three lakhs. May be it is true that the petitioners were absent and the trial Court is justified in setting them ex parte and thereafter, passing an ex parte decree, but however, when the petitioners have come forward narrating the circumstances under which they could not prosecute the case, the Court should have taken a liberal attitude and condoned the delay for the reason that an amount of rupees more than three lakhs and also the substantial rights are involved in this case. 5. In the light of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order dated 05-08-2009, impugned in this revision, is set aside and the trial Court is directed to take up the application filed to set aside the ex parte decree dated 23-04-2009, taking clue from this order and decide the suit at the earliest. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ 3rd February 2010 KVR