HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO Civil Revision Petition No.2754 of 2001 Date: 16-9-2011 Between Katta Jaya Ratna … Petitioner/Petitioner/Plaintiff and Tatipalli Yashoda and another … Respondents/Respondents/ Defendants HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO Civil Revision Petition No.2754 of 2001 Order: The civil revision petition is filed being aggrieved by the order and decree in I.A.No.256 of 1997 in O.S.No.153 of 1990, dated 06-4-2001, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, Karimnagar district. 2. The revision petitioner herein is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants in the suit O.S.No.153 of 1990. The said suit was dismissed for default on 02-8-1995. The petitioner filed the present interlocutory application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, read with Section 151 of C.P.C., to condone the delay of 560 days in filing an interlocutory application under Order IX, Rule 9 of C.P.C., for restoration of the suit. The trial Court, after enquiry, dismissed the said application on the ground that the petitioner failed to prove the day-to-day delay and also the sufficient cause to condone the delay. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present civil revision petition is filed by the plaintiff. 3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner mainly urged that husband of the petitioner was employed at Saudi in the year 1994. Thereafter, she shifted to her parents’ house at Mallial village and therefore, she could not get information about the proceedings of the suit. She learnt about the dismissal order in the suit only after her husband returned from Saudi on 17-3-1997 and that the petitioner proved sufficient cause for not prosecuting the suit earlier. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji[1]. 4. Now, the point for consideration is: Whether the impugned order is sustainable ? 5. Point:- As seen from the Affidavit in support of the present interlocutory application filed by the petitioner, she filed the suit O.S.No.153 of 1990 for declaration of title and perpetual injunction, and the said suit was dismissed for default on 02-8-1995. It is the case of the petitioner that she is not aware of hearing of the suit on 02-8-1995 as she was at Mallial village and she could not receive any information from her advocate. Her Affidavit further reads that her husband went to Saudi in the year 1994 and thereafter she could not stay at Karimnagar and on 17-3- 1997 her husband, who came recently from Saudi, approached her advocate to enquire about the dismissal of the suit on 02-8-1995. 6. Even the recitals in the Affidavit did not read that the plaintiff approached her advocate to know the stage of the suit. It is her husband who approached her advocate and noted the date of dismissal of the suit. The petitioner did not file any documentary proof that she was living in her parents’ village after her husband left for Saudi. 7. The trial Court observed in the impugned order that the suit O.S.No.153 of 1990 is a very old matter, which was filed in the year 1990 and after giving sufficient time and as there was no representation on behalf of the plaintiff, the said suit was dismissed on 02-8-1995. It is also noted that the petitioner did not satisfactorily explain the abnormal delay in her Affidavit. 8. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is residing in Karimnagar district after her husband left for Saudi. As she filed the suit for declaration of title and perpetual injunction, she has to take steps to prosecute the same. But, she has been silent all these years. She has to prove that there is a sufficient cause for the delay in filing the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The conduct of the petitioner for her silence all these years and filing the present application to condone the delay of 560 days, in my view, needs no consideration in the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. Therefore, the order of the trial Court is justified and sustainable. 9. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed, confirming the impugned order. No costs. ___________________ K.S.APPA RAO, J. 16th September, 2011. Ak HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO Civil Revision Petition No.2754 of 2001 16th September, 2011. (Ak) [1] AIR 1987 SC 1353