IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1672 OF 2009 Between: 1. Y. Radhamma 2. Y. Radhakrishna 3. Y. Laxminarayana 4. Y. Sriramulu 5. Y. Shailaja … Petitioners/(Petititoners)/(Defendants) AND 1. Y. Varalaxmi 2. Y. Sravanthi … Respondents/(Respondents)/(Plaintiffs) The Court made the following : ORDER: The revision, under Section 115 of C.P.C., is directed against the order, dated 18.03.2009, in I.A.No.30 of 2009 in O.S.No.6 of 2006 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Manthani, Karimnagar District, whereunder and whereby, a petition to condone the delay of “802 days” in filing the application under Order IX Rule 9 of C.P.C. to set aside the ex parte decree and judgment passed against the Revision Petitioners, was dismissed on the ground that sufficient cause has not been shown. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that since the petitioners were under the impression that the Advocate was looking after the case, they did not enquire the Advocate and the delay of “802 days” in filing the application under Order IX Rule 9 of C.P.C. is not wanton or willful and that they have got a good case in the main suit. Hence, he prays to set aside the same. 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent contended that the delay has not been properly explained by the petitioners, and the Advocate, who was appearing for petitioners in the trial Court, was residing by the side of the house of the petitioners as a tenant, and therefore, they have not shown any due diligence in making enquiries about the suit and hence, the trial Court rightly dismissed the same. 4. The word ‘sufficient cause’ is not defined under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, but it must mean a cause which is beyond the control of the party invoking the aid of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Any cause which prevents a person from approaching the Court can be said to be sufficient cause to condone the delay. 5. The delay in the case is “802 days” in filing the application under Order IX Rule 9 of C.P.C. to set aside the ex parte decree and judgment, passed against the Revision Petitioners. The petitioners themselves stated in their affidavit that the counsel engaged by them was residing by the side of their portion as a tenant. It is not as if one petitioner was not properly prosecuting the case, but all the petitioners herein have not enquired the advocate about the stage of the cases though he was readily available. As a matter of fact, he was residing by the side of the house of the petitioners. They have not evinced any interest to know the stage of the suit. Therefore, the abnormal delay of “802 days” in filing the application under Order IX Rule 9 of C.P.C. to set aside the ex parte decree and judgment, passed against the Revision Petitioners has not been explained by the petitioners herein. Precisely, for that reason, the trial Court rightly exercised its discretion in not condoning the delay. That discretion has been exercised by trial Court in a judicious manner. That order does not suffer from any infirmities so as to call for interference by this Court. 6. Hence, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ (K.C.BHANU, J) Dated: 8th September, 2009. KL