THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU C.R.P.No.3434 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of C.P.C. is directed against the order made in I.A.No.49 of 2007 in O.S.No.30 of 2004 dated 31.5.2008 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gudur, Nellore district, whereunder the application filed by the petitioner under Section 5 of Limitation praying the Court to condone the delay of 970 days caused in filing the petition for setting aside the exparte decree dated 24.4.2004 was dismissed. Petitioner is defendant and respondent is plaintiff. The respondent laid suit in O.S.No.30 of 2004 for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 9.3.2001. The said suit was decreed ex parte on 24.4.2004. Therefore, petitioner application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC seeking to set aside the ex parte decree, along with application under Section 5 of Limitation Act seeking to condone the delay of 970 days in filing the set aside the petition. However, the Court below vide impugned order dated 31.5.2008 dismissed the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act. Hence this C.R.P. The brief facts of the case are that the son of P.K.Rangaramanujam by name Ramesh Narayan was the Managing Director of Petitioner Company. The company purchased land to an extent of Ac.49-83 cents in Sy.Nos.700-2, 701-1, 697-2, 698-2 and 699-1 of Chaganam village, Sydapuram mandal, Nellore district to extract quartz mineral lying therein and also obtained mining lease from the Government of A.P. While that being so, it appears, petitioner’s son Ramesh Narayan, along with his wife and three children committed suicide on 15.7.2001. Thereafter, the present suit in O.S.No.30 of 2004 was filed seeking specific performance of agreement of sale purported to have been executed by the son of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, his son did not execute any documents for sale of the subject property. Summons in the suit were served on the petitioner asking him to appear before the Court on 6.4.2004. However, due to pathetic condition and depression developed due to the death of his son, daughter-in-law and three grand daughters on 15.7.2001, he was in shock and did not pursue the matter. After four years thereafter, when somebody approached him for purchasing the land held by the company, and when obtained Encumbrance Certificate, it was revealed that the suit in O.S.No.30 of 2004 was decreed and in pursuance of the orders passed in the E.P., sale deed was executed in favour of respondent. Therefore, on the advice, petitioner filed the present application under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC seeking to set aside the ex parte decree along with I.A. under Section 5 of Limitation Act since there was some delay. The said application was resisted by the respondent herein. The Court below, vide impugned order dated 31.5.2008 dismissed the said application while holding; “Admittedly, the decree in the suit was passed in exparte when the defendant did not turn up after receiving summons. The only reason stated by him was that he was unable to attend before the court on 6.4.2004 due to his pathetic condition of depression developed by him due to the death of his son, daughter-in-law and grand daughters and that it has been categorically stated by him that his son, his wife and his three of their daughters committed suicide on 15.7.2001 i.e. about 3 years prior to the date of receipt of suit summons. One can imagine that the unnatural death of his kith and kin would cause grief and shock to him for a period, but it cannot continue till 3 years. Thus the petitioner admits that he has received the summons on 6.4.2004 and he did not appear before the Court and had not evinced any interest in the suit i.e. knowing about the result of the suit. It has been further observed that the respondent in the E.P. proceedings has got executed the sale deed in his favour through the Court and even at that time, the petitioner did not take any steps after the expiry of a period of 3 years and he has leisurely file the petition. Though it has been stated that the Court has to exercise the discretion liberally while condoning the delay, the petitioner has to show a ‘sufficient cause’ to substantiate his plea. In this case, I do not find the existence of a ‘sufficient cause’ to condone the delay. Because it is not the case of the petitioner that he was totally ignorant of the judicial proceedings since he had admitted that he has received the summons. But he did not respond to it and has not appeared before the court. Even if the episode of the death of his family members is taken into account they died in the year 2001 and he received the summons in the year 2004 i.e. 3 years after the death of his family members. Therefore, I am not inclined to accept the plea of the petitioner/defendant and condone the delay of 970 days in filing the petition under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC”. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the petitioner was alone and was in suspended animation as his son, daughter-in-law and three grand daughters committed suicide on 15.7.2001 and when somebody approached him for purchasing the land held by the company, on enquiries it was revealed that the suit in O.S.No.30 of 2004 was filed and it was decreed and sale deed was executed in favour of respondents. Therefore he filed the present I.A. The learned counsel further contended that the Court below did not appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case properly and simply dismissed the application erroneously. Whereas the leaned counsel appearing for respondent Mr.V.Sudhakar Reddy strenuously contended that this application is not only belated one, but also suffers from other factual revelations. If really, petitioner was in depressed condition, he could not have received compensation for some of the lands acquired. All these things would indicate that the petitioner was in sound condition. Therefore, the applications under Order IX Rule 13 CPC and Section 5 of Limitation Act are only ruse and absolutely no sufficient cause was shown for the purpose of condoning the abnormal delay of 970 days. The Court below rightly rejected the application while recording the above findings and such findings, being discretionary in its nature, this Court ordinarily may not interfere with the same, unless some extraordinary circumstances are shown. Therefore, the C.R.P. is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned order and other material made available on record. The agreement of sale was executed on 9.3.2001 and the son, daughter-in-law and three grand daughters of the petitioner committed suicide on 15.7.2001 and the suit was laid in the year 2004. Admittedly, the land to an extent of Ac.49-83 cents was registered in the name of the company. Petitioner was neither shareholder nor Managing Director of the company. However, suit was filed impleading the company purported to be represented by the petitioner herein. There is no authority whatsoever under the law for sale of the land by the son of the petitioner. The judgment of the Court below in O.S.No.30 of 2004 also does not indicate as to what was the authority conferred on the son of the petitioner to sell the land and whether there was any resolution passed by the company. These are all larger questions which cannot be gone into by this Court and it is for the parties to work out in the original suit, but the fact remains that the only son, daughter-in-law and three grand daughters of the petitioner committed suicide on 15.7.2001. Under those circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner was hale and healthy and was in sound state of mind to pursue the litigation from Chennai (suit was filed in Sub-Court, Gudur). Notices were served on the petitioner at Chennai and according to the petitioner, though he received them, but he was not in a fit condition to react to those things and take appropriate steps. Further, the agreement shows that the land of Ac.49-83 cents was sold for a sum of Rs.3,73,800/- and there is any amount of suspicion about the same. These are all matters to be considered by the Court below. I am of the considered opinion that in a case of this nature, the Court below ought not to have held that no sufficient cause was shown for condoning the delay of 970 days in filing the petition to set aside the exparte decree. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court below should have taken a lenient view of the matter. I am of the view that the Court below erred in not taking the overall circumstances into consideration for the purpose of condoning the delay of 970 days. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. I.A.No.49 of 2007 is ordered accordingly. The Court below is directed to take up the petition under Order IX Rule 13 CPC and pass appropriate orders, as per law. Any observations made in this C.R.P. will not have any bearing on the merits of the suit. However, it is made clear that during the pendency of proceedings, status quo as on today shall continue in respect of sale deed executed by the Court below in pursuance of the decree passed. The C.R.P. is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. ______________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 25.10.2010 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU C.R.P.No.3434 of 2008 25.10.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU C.R.P.No.3434 of 2008 Date: 25th October, 2010 Between: Raka Implex Pvt. Ltd., Anna Nagar, Chennai, rep. by P.K.Rangaramanujam. .. Petitioner And Thimmareddy Leelavathamma .. Respondent