IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.6263 OF 2009, 6269 of 2009 AND 1476 OF 2010 C.R.P.No.6263 OF 2009: Between: Akshada Constructions and another .....PETITIONERS AND Guttikonda Sudha ....RESPONDENT C.R.P.No.6269 OF 2009: Between: Akshada Constructions and another .....PETITIONERS AND Tagore Guttikonda ....RESPONDENT C.R.P.No.1476 OF 2010: Between: Akshada Constructions and another .....PETITIONERS AND C. Subba Rao ....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.6263 OF 2009, 6269 of 2009 AND 1476 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER: C.R.P.No.6263 of 2009, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short, “C.P.C.”), is directed against the order, dated 23.06.2009, in I.A.No.102 of 2009 in O.S.No.1136 of 2008, on the file of IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby, the petition, filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, (for short, “the Act”), to condone the delay of 32 days in filing the petition to set aside the judgment and decree, dated 19.11.2008, in O.S.No.1136 of 2008, was dismissed. 2. C.R.P.No.6269 of 2009, under Section 115 C.P.C., is directed against the order, dated 17.07.2009, in I.A.No.101 of 2009 in O.S.No.1138 of 2008, on the file of IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby, the petition, filed under Section 5 of the Act, to condone the delay of 32 days in filing the petition to set aside the judgment and decree, dated 19.11.2008, in O.S.No.1138 of 2008, was dismissed. 3. C.R.P.No.1476 of 2010, Under Section 115 C.P.C., is directed against the order, dated 17.07.2009, in I.A.No.100 of 2009 in O.S.No.1137 of 2008, on the file of IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby, the petition, filed under Section 5 of the Act, to condone the delay of 32 days in filing the petition to set aside the judgment and decree, dated 19.11.2008, in O.S.No.1137 of 2008, was dismissed. 4. Heard. 5. The word ‘sufficient cause’ has not been defined under Section 5 of the Act. But, it must mean a cause, which is beyond the control of the party invoking the aid of the said provision. A cause for delay, which by due care and attention the party could have avoided, can be a sufficient cause. The test, therefore whether or not a cause is sufficient is to see whether it could have been avoided by the party by the exercise of due care and attention. 6. Petitioners herein are defendants in the suits. Respondents herein are plaintiffs in the suits respectively. After receipt of summons by the petitioners herein in all the suits, they engaged an advocate on 23.10.2008, who filed vakalat. Admittedly, the petitioners have not filed any petition seeking leave of the Court to defend the suits in view of the fact that the suits are filed invoking the provisions under Order XXXVII C.P.C. The suits were decreed on 19.11.2008. Thereafter, the present petitions were filed to condone the delay. The grounds on which the trial Court dismissed the applications are that proper explanation was not given by the petitioners for condonation of delay and that there is discrepancy with regard to the name of the Doctor in the Medical Certificate with that of the affidavit filed in support of the petitions. 7. No doubt, in the Medical Certificate, it is stated that petitioner No.2 has taken treatment from the Doctor by name Dr. Ch. Padma Kumar, whereas his name was wrongly referred to as Dr. Padma Rao in the affidavit filed in support of the petitions. There may be some communication gap between petitioner No.2 and his counsel in noting down the correct name of the Doctor, who has given treatment to petitioner No.2. As seen from the Medical Certificate issued by the Doctor, petitioner No.2 was advised to take rest from 10.12.2008 to 18.01.2009. Therefore, for that reason he may not have contacted his advocate so as to file applications to seek the leave of the court to defend the suits, which are summary in nature. Hence, considering these aspects it can be said that proper explanation was given by petitioner No.2 for not giving proper instructions to his counsel for filing the necessary applications and the delay cannot be shown to be wanton or willful. Furthermore, the petitioners would not gain any advantage by filing such applications. On the other hand, there will be a risk of dismissing the applications, thereby confirming the judgments and decrees of the trial Court. So, the impugned judgments can be set aside, but at the same time, the interest of the respondent/plaintiff, in whose favour the judgments and decrees are passed, has to be safeguarded. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned judgments are set aside. The petitioners are directed to deposit 50% of the decreetal amounts together with costs and interest within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. For any reason, if the petitioners fail to comply with the order of this Court, the impugned orders shall be given effect to. It is needless to observe that under no circumstances extension of time would be granted by this Court to deposit the said amounts and no petition for extension of time shall be entertained by the Registry on this aspect. 9. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J March 03, 2011 MD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.6263 OF 2009, 6269 of 2009 AND 1476 OF 2010 March 03, 2011