IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND TEN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3338 of 2008 Between: Modala Tirupaiah ….PETITIONER(S) and Gayam Gurava Reddy …RESPONDENT(S) HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3338 of 2008 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 07.07.2008 passed in I.A.No.337 of 2005 in O.S.No.305 of 2004 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Kodad, whereunder and whereby the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as – ‘the Act’), to condone the delay of 155 days in filing the petition under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex parte decree dated 21.12.2004, was dismissed. The learned counsel for petitioner contended that the sufficient cause by which the petitioner was prevented from approaching the Court is, immediately after receipt of summons by the petitioner, a panchayath was held in the presence of elders and in the said panchayath, the respondent-plaintiff agreed to withdraw the Suit itself and, therefore, he did not file the petition to set aside the ex parte decree within the time prescribed by law. The term ‘sufficient cause’ used in Section 5 of the Act has not been defined. But, it must mean a cause which is beyond the control of the party invoking the aid of Section 5 of the Act. If a person is prevented by justifiable cause then it can be said to be a ‘sufficient cause’. If a party after receipt of summons did not approach the Court within 30 days, he can make an application under Section 5 of the Act duly showing the sufficient cause which prevented him to approach the Court and engage a counsel to make an application to set aside the ex parte decree. The only cause shown by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the petition is that after receipt of summons he approached the panchayath elders and before the elders the respondent-plaintiff agreed to withdraw the Suit itself. That cannot be termed as a ‘sufficient cause’ within the meaning of Section 5 of the Act, and the trial Court rightly disbelieved the reason given by him in the affidavit filed in support of the application in view of the fact that unless he pays the entire amount question of withdrawal of the Suit by the respondent-plaintiff does not arise. Except the affidavit filed in support of the application to show that the respondent-plaintiff agreed to withdraw the Suit, the petitioner, in support of his contention, has not filed the affidavits of the elders before whom the respondent-plaintiff agreed to withdraw the Suit. In the absence of proper explanation, the trial Court rightly dismissed the application. There are no grounds to interfere with the order impugned. The revision petition is, therefore, devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J 19th OCTOBER 2010 CVRK