IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY C.R.P.NO.5537 of 2010 Date:21.03.2011 Between:- K.P.Shivarami Reddy ..Petitioner And K.P.Mallikarjuna Reddy and others .. Respondents ORDER:- This revision is directed against the order dated 19-10-2010 passed in I.A.No.118 of 2010 in O.S.No.66 of 2009 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge at Alampur whereunder and whereby, the learned Junior Civil Judge condoned the delay of 65 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree passed in O.S.No.66 of 2009 subject to payment of costs of Rs.500/-. 2. The petitioner is the plaintiff and respondents are the defendants in O.S.No.66 of 2009. The respondents filed the suit for perpetual injunction in respect of Ac.7.10guntas in Survey No.253/B of Manopad Village and Mandal. The plaintiff claim that he got the property under a gift deed executed by defendant No.1, who is no other than his brother. The defendant, having entered into appearance, failed to file written statement and consequently, an ex parte decree came to be passed on 19-03-2010. Thereafter, the defendants filed petition under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. to set aside the ex parte decree dated 19-03- 2010. They also moved I.A.No.118 of 2010 to condone delay of 65 days in filing the petition to set aside ex parte decree. The first defendant has sworn to the affidavit filed in support of the delay condone petition. It is stated in the affidavit that the first defendant went to Hyderabad for personal work relating to his profession and other defendants went to other areas for eking out their livelihood. Meanwhile, he and his kith and kin suffered from viral fever. Therefore, he could not make appearance before the Court and file written statement. 3. The plaintiff filed counter resisting the application. 4. The learned Junior Civil Judge, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, proceeded to allow the application to condone the delay in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree subject to payment of costs of Rs.500/- by order dated 19-10-2010. Hence, this revision by the plaintiff. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the reasons assigned by the respondents/defendants to condone delay of 65 days in filing the petition under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. are wholly unsatisfactory and that the trial Court has not considered the material brought on record in right perspective and thereby, erred in condoning the delay of 65 days. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants supported the order impugned in the petition. 8. The guiding principle in considering the delay condonation application is that justice should not be sacrificed on the alter of technicalities. But, at the same time, the Court should not loose sight of the statutory requirement of existence of sufficient cause and condone delay on equitable grounds. It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the Court. Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that the discretion of the Court for condonation of delay is within certain limits. Length of the delay is no matter. Acceptability of the explanation is the only criteria. N.Balakrishnan vs. M.Krishnamurthy[1]. The said judgment has been followed by the subsequent judgment in M.K.Prasad vs. P.Arumugam[2]. 9. The dispute between the parties is in respect of Ac.7- 10 guntas comprising Sy.No.253/B. Since substantial rights of the respondents/defendants are involved, the delay of 65 days can be condoned on equitable grounds. The costs imposed on the respondents/defendants by the trial Court appears to be too low. In that view of the matter, I am inclined to enhance costs from Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) to Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only). The respondents/ defendants shall deposit Rs.5,000/- on or before two (2) weeks from today. As and when the amount is deposited, the plaintiff is entitled to withdraw the same. Failing compliance of the condition, I.A.No.118 of 2010 in O.S.No.66 of 2009 shall stand dismissed. 10. The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. _​___________________________________ JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY 21st March, 2011 AMD [1] 1998 (7) S.C.C. 123 [2] A.I.R.2001 Supreme Court 2497