THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.No.1803 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner filed O.S.No.15 of 2009 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Huzurabad, against the respondent for the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit schedule property, an item of agricultural land. The respondent entered appearance. However, she did not file the written statement within the stipulated time and she was in fact set ex parte on 17.11.2009. Thereafter, an ex parte decree was passed on 24.11.2009. The petitioner filed E.P.No.1 of 2010 and it is sated that the possession of the property was delivered on 24.02.2010 and that the E.P. was closed. The respondent filed I.A.No.52 of 2010 with a prayer to condone the delay of 92 days in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree. She pleaded that on 24.11.2009, she went to Warangal to perform the obsequies of one of her close relations and thereby, she did not attend the Court. A combined prayer of condonation of delay and setting aside the ex parte decree was made. The application was opposed by the petitioner by filing a counter. The trial Court allowed the I.A., though its order dated 16.04.2010 by imposing costs of Rs.100/-. The same is challenged in this revision. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application filed by the respondent was totally untenable, since no separate application was filed under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. He submits that ever since the service of summons on her, the respondent remained indifferent, so much so, she was set ex parte and an ex parte decree was passed. He also submits that though no copy of written statement was served upon his client, the trial Court proceeded on the assumption that the written statement was filed. He further submits that the trial Court did not make any reference to the averments in the counter. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that the suit was decreed hardly within few months, after it was filed, and that the respondent did not have ample opportunity to contest it. He contends that being an agriculturalist, the respondent relied upon her Advocate and her absence on the relevant dates was neither willful nor wanton. He contends that there is no prohibition in law as such, against filing of application of this nature. The summons in the suit were served upon the respondent on 09.05.2009 and she entered appearance. Though she was under obligation to file written statement within 90 days therefrom, she did not file the same. In addition to that, there was no representation for her on 17.11.2009 and she was accordingly set ex parte. Within one week thereafter, an ex parte decree came to be passed on the basis of the chief examination of P.W.1. It is true that the application filed by the respondent is not in the proper form. All the same, her request for condonation of delay to enable her to contest the matter is mentioned in it. Though technically speaking, the application is not tenable, in view of the law laid down by this Court that a combined application for the reliefs under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. and Section 5 of the Limitation Act can be filed, it cannot be said to be untenable. The delay is not enormous and if one takes into account the rural background of the respondent and the time within which, the suit came to be decreed, it cannot be said that the discretion exercised by the trial Court is misplaced. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 24.08.2010 JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.No.1803 of 2010 Date: 24.08.2010 jsu