THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Civil Revision Petition No. 5470 of 2010 Dated: 21.01.2011 Between: Challamalla Veera Venkata Satyanarayana, Goplapuram Mandal, West Godavari District and another. … Petitioners And Sri Mattaparthi Rama Mohana Rao, West Godavari District and 3 others. … Respondents THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI Civil Revision Petition No. 5470 of 2010 O R D E R : The revision petitioners are the respondents in I.P.No.22 of 2005 on the file for the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kovvur. The said I.P. was filed by the respondents 1 to 3 herein under the provisions of the Provisional Insolvency Act to adjudicate the petitioners herein as insolvents. As the revision petitioners remained ex-parte, I.P.No.22 of 2005 was allowed by order dated 27.01.2006. Long thereafter, the petitioners herein filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. for setting aside the order dated 27.01.2006 along with I.A.No.1147 of 2007 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 543 days in filing the said petition. After hearing both the parties, I.A.No.1147 of 2007 was dismissed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kovvur. Aggrieved by the same, though the revision petitioners filed C.M.A.No.29 of 2009 in the Court of the Principal District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru, it was dismissed by the judgment dated 17.08.2010. Hence, the present revision petition. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. The affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.1147 of 2007 shows that the petitioners sought to explain the delay stating that the respondents had played fraud on them and the decree was obtained behind their back. However, the petitioners did not choose to adduce any evidence to establish the said plea of fraud. In the circumstances, the trial Court had declined to condone the delay and the same was confirmed by the lower appellate Court. The law is well settled that application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act can be allowed only where a sufficient cause is made out by the applicant for the delay. In the present case, having pleaded that the delay had taken place on account of the alleged fraud played by the respondents, the burden is upon the revision petitioners to establish the same. As noticed above, the revision petitioners did not adduce any evidence to establish their plea that the respondents played fraud upon them resulting in the ex-parte decree in I.P.No.22 of 2005. Hence, both the Courts below were justified in holding that no sufficient cause was made out for condoning the long delay. The said orders of the Courts below cannot be held to be illegal on any ground whatsoever. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. _______________ G. ROHINI, J. Date: 21 .01.2011 KLP