THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5701 of 2009 ORAL ORDER: Heard both sides. 2. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 04.11.2009, passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada, allowing the application in I.A.No.1922 of 2007 in O.S.No.45 of 1998, filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking to condone the delay of 193 days in filing an application under Order-9 Rule-13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for setting aside the ex parte decree, dated 19.09.2006, passed in O.S.No.45 of 1998. 3. The petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants in the said suit. 4. For the sake of convenience, in this order, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the suit. 5. The grievance of the plaintiff is that the Court below was in error in allowing the present application, filed by the defendants, seeking condonation of the delay in filing an application, seeking to set aside the ex parte decree, dated 19.09.2006, passed in O.S.No.45 of 1998, passed against them. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff submits that the said suit was decreed on 19.09.2006; that the E.P. was filed and warrants were also issued and at that stage, the present application came to be filed by the defendants to prevent the plaintiff from enjoying the fruits of the said decree and hence there is absolutely no justification in allowing the said application, by the Court below. 7. No doubt, the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff appears to be attractive, but here is a case where the Court below had exercised its discretionary jurisdiction in passing the impugned order. In cases, where the trial Court exercises its discretionary jurisdiction in the applications, filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, this Court shall not, ordinarily, interfere, unless and until a palpable irregularity is demonstrated. 8. Obviously, this is a case where the trial Court, having regard to the facts and circumstances, allowed the application, exercising its discretionary jurisdiction. Therefore, I do not propose to interfere with the discretionary order, passed by the trial Court. 9. It is needless to mention that the Court below shall dispose of the matter with utmost expedition, since the suit is of the year 1998, on priority basis, and, if no co-operation is extended by the defendants in this regard, it can pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. 10. Subject to the above observations and directions, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, at the stage of admission. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 12th March 2010 dr