HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.R.P. No. 3772 of 2011 DATED: 16.09.2011 Between: M. Ramaiah .. Petitioners and two others And Vittal .. Respondents O R D E R:- This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 28.07.2011 passed in I.A. No. 1215 of 2007 in O.S. No. 2650 of 2007 by V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad whereby the petition filed by the respondent-defendant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 83 days in presenting the petition to set aside the ex parte order dated 15.10.2009 was allowed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners-plaintiffs and perused the order under revision. The petitioners-plaintiffs filed suit in O.S. No. 2650 of 2007 seeking a direction to the respondent-defendant to vacate and handover possession of the suit schedule property and pay damages at the rate of Rs.1500/- p.m. On being served with summons, vakalat was filed on 15.07.2008 on behalf of the respondent-defendant, and in spite of that he did not file written statement, as such, he was set ex parte and an ex parte decree was passed on 15.10.2009. According to the defendant, he had knowledge of the suit proceedings only on 15.06.2010 and filed the present application on 06.09.2010 with a delay of 83 days. The trial Court, while allowing the application, relied upon a decision reported in Movva Anjamma v. Abhineni Anasuya[1] wherein this Court held to the following effect: “While considering the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, approach of the Court should be, liberal construction be given to the expression to advance cause of justice and not to punish parties for mistakes committed and not to destroy their legal rights.” From the above, it is clear that the Courts can exercise their discretion while ordering applications for condonation of delay in setting aside ex parte orders. In the light of the proposition of law laid down in the judgment cited supra, the trial Court had exercised its own discretion in condoning the delay of 83 days in filing the application. Hence, the impugned order does not suffer from an error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference by this Court. The Civil Revision Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J 16.09.2011 bcj [1] 1999(1) ALT 327