IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR C.R.P.NO.2813 OF 2007 21-12-2010 Between:- Kolla Naga Durga and another .. Petitioners And Somaraju Rama Rao ..Respondent ORDER:- Notice was served on the respondent. The respondent, however, is unrepresented. The petitioners are the plaintiffs. In I.A.No.1176 of 2004, the plaintiffs sought for condonation of delay of 86 days in filing a petition to set aside the decree in O.S.No.613 of 2001 dismissing the suit for default. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the second plaintiff, who is the brother of the first plaintiff, was looking after the matters relating to their suit and that as the second plaintiff was suffering from sciatic pain, he could not attend the Court nor could he contact his counsel during the relevant time. The first plaintiff is a lady. She claims that as her husband was looking after the affairs relating to the case, she did not approach her counsel initially and having come to know that the suit was dismissed for default, she has filed the present petition. The petitioners not only examined the second plaintiff as P.W.1 but also examined the Doctor as P.W.2. The Doctor deposed that he treated the second plaintiff/P.W.1 as the second plaintiff was suffering from sciatic pain. Holding that the first plaintiff should have conducted the case when the second plaintiff became indisposed and further holding that the second plaintiff was not an inpatient in any hospital although he was suffering from sciatic pain, the learned trial Judge considered that the delay does not deserve to be condoned. The delay is as small as eighty six days. Added to it, the Doctor, who treated the second plaintiff, certified that the second plaintiff was suffering from ill health during the relevant time. I, therefore, agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs that the plaintiffs have successfully explained the delay in filing the petition under Order IX Rule 9 C.P.C. The delay, therefore, deserves to be condoned. The Revision is accordingly allowed. The delay in filing petition under Order IX Rule 9 C.P.C is condoned. The trial Court shall check and number the petition under Order IX Rule 9 C.P.C, if it is otherwise in order, and shall dispose of the same on merits. No costs. _______________ K.G.SHANKAR,J 21st December 2010 AMD