IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5940 OF 2010 Between : Vakkala Abdul Khader .... PETITIONER A N D A.Chinna Venkata Subbaiah. …RESPONDENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5940 OF 2010 O R D E R: This Civil Revision Petition, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’), is directed against the order and decree, dated 18.09.2010, in I.A.No.199 of 2010 in O.S.No.414 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur, whereunder and whereby, the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to condone the delay of 330 days in filing a petition under Order IX Rule 9 CPC, was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner/plaintiff has not explained the delay. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he filed a suit against the respondent/defendant for declaration of title, mandatory and permanent injunctions. After filing of the suit, the petitioner left India and went to Dubai for employment for his livelihood and stayed there till 29.06.2009. There was no communication between the petitioner and his counsel. After arrival of the petitioner to Proddatur on 30.06.2009, he fell ill due to T.B., B.P. and sugar and bed ridden and unable to attend before the Court below as the Doctor advised him to take bed rest. After treatment, the petitioner recovered from illness to some extent and contacted his counsel and came to know that the suit was dismissed on 22.01.2009 for his non-appearance and non-filing of his chief affidavit. Hence, the petition. 3. Heard. 4. The expression ‘sufficient cause’ in Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not defined, but it can be inferred that it must mean a cause which is beyond the control of the party invoking the aid of the Section. The test, therefore, whether or not a cause is sufficient is to see whether it could have been avoided by the party by the exercise of due care and attention. It should receive liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice, when no negligence, nor inaction nor want of bona fides is imputable to the party. 5. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition it is stated that the petitioner left India in the year 2006. The trial Court has not placed any reliance for the reason that the petitioner has not filed any passport or such other relevant documents, which would reveal about his going to Dubai. But, virtue of the order of the Court below, the substantive rights of the parties have been affected. Therefore, one more opportunity can be given to the petitioner to establish his case because the petitioner left to Dubai in the year 2006. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order, dated 18.09.2010 in I.A.No.199 of 2010 in O.S.No.414 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur and remanding the matter to the trail Court giving liberty to the petitioner to adduce necessary evidence. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J MARCH 29, 2011 YVL