THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3807 and 4132 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: Both these Civil Revision Petitions are filed by defendants 2, 3, 8, 9 and 11 in O.S.No.100 of 2007 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon, as such, they are heard together and being disposed of by this common order. Petitioners are defendants 2, 3, 8, 9 and 11 in O.S.No.100 of 2007 filed by the first respondent for partition and separate possession of the schedule property. In the said suit, the petitioners herein, who are five in number, claim that they have purchased major portion of the schedule property from the father of the first respondent/plaintiff. It is stated that pursuant to such purchase, they are in possession of it from the last more than four decades. Though they received summons in the suit, as they were not appeared, they were set ex parte and ex parte preliminary decree was passed on 25.11.2008. Thereafter, the first respondent filed I.A.No.120 of 2009 seeking final decree. In the said I.A., as the petitioners did not appear, they were set ex parte and ex parte order was passed on 10.02.2010. In this view of the matter, they filed I.A.No.311 of 2010 seeking to set aside the ex parte order, dated 10.02.2010 passed in I.A.No.120 of 2009, and also I.A.No.312 of 2010 seeking to condone the delay in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree, dated 25.11.2008. The Court below rejected both the said applications, by the impugned common order. Hence, both these Civil Revision Petitions. In these Civil Revision Petitions, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in spite of sufficient reasons shown, the Court below has refused to condone the delay. It is submitted that as the petitioners have purchased the properties from the father of the first respondent and they were in possession of the same from the last more than four decades, if the delay is not condoned, they will be put to great hardship. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/plaintiff that having considered the applications, the Court below by recording valid reasons, refused to condone the delay and that in the absence of any third party affidavit and in view of sufficient reasons assigned, there is no ground to interfere with the impugned common order. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavits filed in support of the applications and the impugned common order. In the affidavits, the petitioners stated that after receiving summons, they contacted the first respondent and apprised her as to their purchase of the properties from her father and during compromise before the elders, she agreed not to proceed with the claim against them, as such, they did not pursue the matter. As it is pleaded by the petitioners that they were in possession of the properties from the last four decades by virtue of their purchase from the father of the first respondent, their assertion that there was a move for compromise and the first respondent has agreed not to take steps against them can be accepted. It is true that the third party affidavits are not filed but that by itself is no ground to reject I.A.Nos.311 and 312 of 2010 by the impugned common order. In view of the reasons stated in the affidavits filed in support of the applications and having regard to the nature of relief sought in the suit, this Court is of the view that sufficient reasons are shown by the petitioners and it is a fit case to condone the delay by directing them to pay costs to the first respondent/plaintiff, for the lapse on their part. In that view of the matter, common order, dated 11.07.2011 passed in I.A.Nos.311 and 312 of 2010 is set aside and the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed on payment of costs of Rs.2,000/- in each of the CRPs, by the petitioners to the learned counsel for the first respondent, within a period of four (4) weeks from today, under a receipt. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 18th NOVEMBER, 2011. kvni