THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.367 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioners herein are challenging the order dated 13.04.2009 in I.A.No.192 of 2007 in O.S.No.34 of 2004 on the file of the Court of III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Fast Track Court, Warangal. The petitioners are defendant Nos.1 to 5 in the original suit. The first respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the petitioners/defendant Nos.1 to 5 and respondent No.2 and 3/defendant Nos.6 and 7. The said suit was decreed ex parte on 28.09.2006. The petitioners/defendant Nos.1 to 5 filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. to set aside the ex parte decree. As there is delay of 265 days in filing the said application, they have filed I.A.192 of 2010 for condonation of the delay. The case of the petitioners is that they are working as labourers and are uneducated. Petitioner Nos.1 to 3 are residing at Sangem Village and Mandal, Warangal District. Petitioner No.4 is residing at Seetharampuram Village, Nekkonda Mandal and petitioner No.5 is residing at Vidyaranyapuri, Hanamkonda. Their case is that they have engaged Sri N. Shekar Rao, Advocate and as and when they approached him, he was informing them that the case was posted on different dates. Subsequently, when they entertained a doubt, they approached another Advocate Sri P.V.Vidyadhar Raj on 12.08.2007 and came to know that an ex parte decree was passed against them on 28.09.2006. In such circumstances, they could not attend the Court and file written statement. A counter was filed by the first respondent/plaintiff in I.A.No.192 of 2007 contending that when the petitioners/defendant Nos.1 to 5 are attending the criminal case in C.C.No.224 of 2003 and were being represented by Sri N. Shekar Rao, Advocate in the said criminal case, they have the knowledge about the proceedings of the civil case. The lower Court relying on the judgment of this Court and Apex Court and holding that the petitioners/defendant Nos.1 to 5 have not shown ‘sufficient cause’ for condoning the delay, dismissed I.A.No.192 of 2007. Aggrieved by the same, this revision has been filed. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners/defendant Nos.1 to 5 is that the petitioners/defendant Nos. 1 to 5 are residing at different places and after receipt of summons, they have engaged an Advocate and that for no fault of them, they are being deprived of their valuable rights in the immovable property and that if an opportunity is given they will prove their rights. The learned counsel for the first respondent/plaintiff vehemently supported the order of the lower Court and submitted that the petitioners/defendant Nos.1 to 5 have not properly explained the delay. The lower Court has relied on two decisions. The first decision is of the Apex Court in Pundlik Jalam Patil vs. Exe.Eng.Jalgaon Medium Project[1]. As seen from the head note of the said decision as quoted by the lower Court, condonation of delay was sought by furnishing incorrect statement and in such circumstances, the petition for condonation of delay was dismissed. Moreover, the delay in that case was 1427 day. The second decision referred to by the lower Court is of this Court in Rangamma vs. District Collector, Mahaboobnagar[2]. In the said decision, the delay was 1178 days and this Court observed that when reasons assigned for condonation of delay do not show ‘sufficient cause’, the same cannot be condoned and in such cases, the Court should not adopt liberal approach in condoning the delay. The above two decisions are not applicable to the present case. What is to be seen is whether the petitioners/defendant Nos.1 to 5 have assigned sufficient reasons for condonation of the delay or not. Each case has to be decided on its own facts and circumstances. In the case on hand, admittedly the petitioners/defendant Nos.1 to 5 are illiterates and are residing at different places. They have engaged an Advocate for the suit. Of course, they were also attending a criminal case. Merely because they were attending the criminal case that does not mean that they should not believe the version of their Advocate in the civil case. Their specific case is that though they have appointed an Advocate, he has not filed the written statement, till they approached another Advocate, who verified the records, they could not know that an ex parte decree was passed against them. The socio economic status of the parties and other circumstances should be taken into consideration. The lower Court ought to have condoned the delay particularly when the valuable rights of the parties are going to the affected. It is always better if the matters are disposed of on merits rather than on technicalities. The circumstance under which a party could not attend the Court has to be considered and there is no hard and fast rule whether to take a liberal approach or not. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the petitioners/defendant Nos.1 to 5 have shown ‘sufficient cause’, valid reasons and explained the delay and the lower Court ought to have considered the same and condoned the delay. Therefore, the delay has to be condoned. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 13.04.2009 in I.A.No.192 of 2007 in O.S.No.34 of 2004 is set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.192 of 2007 stands allowed. The lower Court is directed to dispose of the suit within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the counsel appearing for both the parties in the lower Court should cooperate in expeditious disposal of the suit. The revision petition is allowed. No costs. __________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR, J 17th June, 2011 GHN [1] 2009 SAR (Civil) 41 [2] 2004(1) ALD 849 (DB)