THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6078 OF 2003 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is directed against the order, dated 12.09.2003, in I.A.No.1235 of 2002 in O.S.No.351 of 2000 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Tuni, whereunder and whereby, the petition, filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, (for short, “the Act”) to condone the delay of 445 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree, dated 20.02.2001, in O.S.No.351 of 2000, was dismissed. 2. Heard. 3. Exercising the jurisdiction under Section 5 of the Act is discretionary. But, in order to exercise the discretion, the petitioner has to satisfactorily explain the sufficient cause for the delay. The word ‘sufficient cause’ is not defined under Section 5 of the Act, 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. Any cause which prevents a person from approaching the Court within time is sufficient. 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. 4. No explanation was forthcoming in the affidavit filed in support of the petition. After summons had been served personally, the petitioner/defendant remained absent. It is stated that the petitioner was not aware of the filing of suit and that the respondent/plaintiff colluded with process server and managed to get an endorsement on summons as if they were served on her. The said aspect is specifically denied by the respondent. According to the petitioner, she knows about the passing of decree after the husband of respondent wrote a letter about the decree. Even that letter is not filed into Court. Therefore, in the absence of any explanation, the trial Court rightly dismissed the petition. There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 5. This Court by order dated, 28.11.2003, in C.M.P.No.26969 of 2003, granted interim stay subject to condition of the petitioner depositing Rs.20,000/-, within a period of six weeks from that date. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said amount has been deposited in the trial Court. Therefore, two months’ time from the date of receipt of a copy of this order is granted to the petitioner to deposit the entire decreetal amount, after giving due credit of the amount, if any, already deposited, failing which the respondent/decree holder can execute the decree. 6. With the above direction, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J December 09, 2010 MD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6078 OF 2003 Between: Gadikoyya Kantham .....PETITIONER AND Kona Chittermma ....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6078 OF 2003 December 09, 2010