IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.838 OF 2009 Between: Mosque and Edgah Management Committee … Petitioner AND Kareema Bee … Respondent The Court made the following : ORDER: This revision petition is directed against the order, dated 09.02.2009, in I.A.No.467 of 2008, in O.S.No.114 of 2007, on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Huzurabad, whereunder and whereby, a petition to condone the delay of 58 days in filing the petition under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. to set aside the ex parte decree, dated 27.03.2008, is dismissed on the ground that no explanation was given for the day-to-day delay. 2. The word ‘sufficient cause’ in the Limitation Act, 1963, is not defined. But it must be a cause beyond the control of the party taking the aid of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The reason stated for the delay is that after receipt of summons, the defendant and its members approached the plaintiff and there was compromise and the plaintiff agreed to vacate the suit schedule premises and to withdraw the suit. Basing upon the compromise, the plaintiff vacated the suit schedule premises in question and handed over the same to the defendant committee, but instead of withdrawing the suit, the plaintiff represented before the trial Court as if she was in possession of the schedule property and therefore, the committee has not taken any steps in engaging an advocate in the suit. The reason given by the petitioner is sufficient to condone the delay of 58 days. Whether the suit schedule premises was handed over by the respondent to the petitioner or not, or whether the respondent vacated the suit schedule premises or not, are the questions to be determined in the suit itself. Without adverting to the factual aspects of the case, a sufficient cause has been shown for setting aside the ex parte order. As the delay has been properly explained, it can be condoned. The trial Court observed that day-to-day delay has not been explained. It is not the requirement of law that each day’s delay has to be explained in a mathematical precision. If the contents in the affidavit would reveal about the reasonable excuse or cause for not contesting the case is shown, then it is sufficient. 3. Hence, the impugned order is set aside. The delay petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. Observation if any, made in this order, is only for the purpose of disposal of this revision petition only. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed. ______________ (K.C.BHANU, J) Dated: 7th August, 2009. KL