THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2233 of 2011 ORDER: Petitioner approaches this Court by filing the present Civil Revision Petition challenging the order dated 08.03.2011 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram in I.A.No.2059 of 2008 in O.S.No.378 of 2002, whereby the learned Judge dismissed the application filed to condone the delay of 2189 days in filing the petition for setting aside the exparte decree. This Court perused the record and heard the arguments. The trial Court recorded the reasons for dismissal of the said petition taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has already participated in the E.P. and subsequent contentions raised by her with regard to her failure to participate in the proceedings are unbelievable and improbable. Further, the learned trial Judge relied on the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in IMPROVEMENT TRUST, LUDHIANA, APPELLANT v. UJAGAR SINGH & OTHERS, RESPONDENTS[1]. The learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court relied on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in G.P.SRIVASTAVA v.R.K.RAIZADA AND OTHERS[2] wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the order passed by the High Court by dismissing the C.R.P. on the ground that the delay should be condoned when the reasons are properly explained. In the said case, the delay is not even one year and considering the same, the Supreme Court interfered with the order of the appellate Court. In contra, learned counsel for the respondent relied on the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in PUNDLIK JALAM PATIL(DEAD) BY LRS. V. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, JALGAON MEDIUM PROJECT AND ANOTHER[3] wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically considered and stated that the reasons for delay should properly explained and each and every date of delay should be properly explained and also he relied on the judgment in BALWANT SINGH (DEAD) v. JAGDISH SINGH AND OTHERS[4] in which the apex Court explained Section 5 and also rendered its judgment on the words ‘Sufficient Cause’. So, the sufficient cause means, it should be probable and acceptable by a prudent man. In the present case, there is inordinate delay of 2189 days. Hence, this Court is of the view the order of the trial Court is in accordance with law. Hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain the C.R.P. and hence, the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, filed along with the criminal petition shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 20th August 2011, Rns. [1] 2010 SAR (Civil) [2] (2000) 3 Supreme Court Cases 54 [3] (2008) 17 Supreme Court Cases 448 [4] (2010) 8 Supreme Court Cases 685