THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 853 of 2010 ORDER: 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 03.09.2009 in I.A. No.366 of 2008 in O.S. No.201 of 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, whereunder and whereby petition filed to condone delay of 210 days in filing petition to set aside ex parte decree, was dismissed. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The reason given by the petitioners is that the first petitioner is a household woman, and the second petitioner is working as Tahsildar and due to heavy work, he could not meet their advocate to prepare written statement. Except that, no other reason is given in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, to condone delay of 210 days. 4. The word ‘sufficient cause’ is not defined under the Limitation Act, 1963. But, it must mean a cause which is beyond the control of the party invoking aid of the Section 5 of the Act. When the petitioners were prevented from approaching the court by sufficient reason, then it can be said to be a good ground for condoning the delay. As seen from the record, several opportunities were given to the petitioners to file written statement, but those opportunities have not been availed by the petitioners. No explanation has been given to file for not filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree in time, except stating that due to heavy work of the second petitioner, they did not meet their advocate. That ground cannot be said to be a ‘sufficient cause’ within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 5. Further more, the conduct of the petitioners is not above board. T h e ex parte decree was passed on 29.01.2008. The petitioners violated the decree willfully with a view to cause loss to the respondent, as the first petitioner sold away suit schedule land by executing a registered agreement of sale by General Power of Attorney on 12.6.2008, for a sale consideration of Rs.8,94,500/-, stating that there was no litigation in respect of the said property. But, by that time, the first petitioner was fully aware of the fact of filing of the suit by the respondent herein. 6. Further more, to show their bona fides, the petitioners did not file their written statement along with the petition to condone delay in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree. Therefore, after proper appreciation of the material available on record, the trial Court rightly dismissed the petition. None of the findings is shown to be perverse or contrary to law. In the absence of any perverse finding, the order under challenge needs no interference. 7. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. --------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 04.06.2010 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 853 of 2010 04.06.2010 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 853 of 2010 04.06.2010 Between: Gajula Madhavi & another …Petitioners And Sardarni Rajani Bai & others …Respondents