THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR C.R.P.No.2964 of 2007 Date: 20.12.2010 Between: Pakanati Brahma Reddy … Petitioner AND Danda Venkateswara Reddy .. Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR C.R.P. No.2964 of 2007 ORDER: This revision is disposed of hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner only. There is no representation for the respondent. 2. The petitioner is the plaintiff. He laid a suit for perpetual injunction. The defendant filed written statement. Issues were framed and the case was coming up for trial. The plaintiff did not appear before the Court on 05.09.2003. The trial Court dismissed the suit for default of the plaintiff. The plaintiff later laid a petition under Order Rule 9 C.P.C. to set aside the default order. The plaintiff filed I.A.No.121 of 2004 to condone the delay of 131 days in filing the petition under Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C. Holding that the delay was not properly explained by the plaintiff, the learned trial Judge dismissed I.A.No.121 of 2004 through the impugned order. 3. The case of the plaintiff is that his counsel in fact addressed a letter to him to bring the evidence and that unfortunately the plaintiff did not receive the said letter. He further submits that as the plaintiff did not receive any letter from his counsel, he could not approach his counsel and that he came to know about the disposal of the case only later. 4. It is the view of the trial Court that the plaintiff did not explain day-to-day delay in filing the petition in I.A.No.121 of 2004. The learned counsel for the plaintiff placed reliance upon Collector, Land Acquisition v. Katiji [1] in support of his contention. Sri M.P. Thakkar, J has pointed out in that case that a liberal view should be adopted in condoning the delay in applications. In the present case, there is delay of 131 days in filing the petition Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C. The case of the petitioner is that on account of lack of proper communication between him and his counsel, the very petitioner could not appear before the Court on 05.09.2003 and that it is the same reason why the delay had occasioned in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C. I find the explanation highly justified. If the plaintiff could not be reached by his counsel, the plaintiff could not have become ready for his evidence and could not have filed a petition under Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C. Further, the delay is 131 days only. I, therefore, deem it appropriate to condone the delay in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C. 5. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is allowed. The delay of 131 days in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C. by the plaintiff before the trial Court is condoned. The trial Court shall check and number the application under Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C. if the same is found to be otherwise in order and dispose of the same on merits. No costs. ________________ K.G. SHANKAR, J Date: 20.12.2010 Isn [1] (1987) 2 SCC 107