HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.Nos.5035 and 5121 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: The petitioner filed O.S.No.7 of 2006 in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Pattikonda, against the respondents for the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. Notices were served upon the respondents. While respondent Nos.1 and 2 entered appearance through Advocate, respondent No.3 remained ex parte on 22.02.2006. At subsequent stage, respondent Nos.1 and 2 also remained ex parte. A n ex parte preliminary decree was passed by the trial Court on 18.09.2006. Based on the same, the petitioner filed an application for final decree on 08.02.2008. This time, respondent Nos.2 and 3 entered appearance after receiving notice, whereas first respondent remained ex parte. All the respondents filed I.A.No.364 of 2009 under Order IX Rule 13 CPC with a prayer to set aside the ex parte decree. Since there was delay of 1048 days in filing the application, they filed I.A.No.363 of 2009 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Through separate orders, dated 22.09.2010, the trial Court allowed the applications. Hence, these two revisions. Sri G. Sravan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the delay was enormous and hardly, there was an explanation from the respondents for not pursuing the suit. He contends that even after engaging Advocate in the suit, the respondents did not participate. Learned counsel further submitted that after receiving notice in the final decree proceedings also, the respondents did not choose to file an application to set aside the ex parte preliminary decree. By any standard, the delay of 1048 days in filing the application to set aside the ex parte preliminary decree is enormous. The fact, however, remains that respondent Nos.1 and 2 did enter appearance in the suit and engaged an Advocate. It is not in dispute that all the respondents are doing labour work in the neigbouring District and they are not expected to keep constant track of the proceedings. However, it is not as if the suit was pending for long. Nearly, within one month, the preliminary decree was passed. The respondents were naturally under the impression that they would be posted with the developments by their respective counsel. On account of the fact that they are residing elsewhere, communication gap occurred. Taking into account the said fact, the trial Court condoned the delay by imposing costs of Rs.500/-. This Court is not inclined to enhance the said costs for the reason that the respondents are living by doing coolie work. Both the Civil Revision Petitions are, accordingly, disposed of, upholding the orders under revisions. Now, that the respondents have expressed their willingness to participate in the suit, the trial Court shall endeavour to dispose of the suit itself, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J Date: 03.12.2010 Note: Issue CC within one week. (Bo) sj