HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRP No.6007/2010 DT. 2-12-2010 M/s. Sitani Finance & Leasing Company Limited, New Delhi represented by its Director, Yashal Gambhir …Petitioner V. Cherukuri Drugs Prasad ..Respondents The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRP No.6007/2010 ORAL ORDER The defendant in OS No.21/1997 on the file of III Additional District Judge, Vijayawada filed this revision petition under Sec. 115 CPC to revise the orders passed by that Court dt. 30-7-2005 in G.L.No.3199/2005 in OS No.21/1997 dismissing the petition filed under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 2168 days ie., from 17-9-1998 till the date of filing of the petition ie., 24-9- 2004, in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree dt. 17-9- 1998 passed in OS No.21/1997. M/s. Sitani Finance and Leasing Company Ltd., New Delhi, represented by its Director Yashpal Gambhir, is the petitioner/defendant herein. The petitioner/defendant who suffered ex parte decree filed the petition under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC with an application to condone the delay of 2168 days stating that he became the Director of the Company in the year 1996; that prior to him, one Vinod Kumar Sitani was the Director and he retired as Director in the year 1998; that he came to know of the suit through their Accountant, on enquiry, about the stage of recovery of the machinery purchased by their Company in public auction in OS No.636/1987 filed against M/s. Vijayalakshmi Bottlers (P) Ltd., Vijayawada as their Company purchased the machinery at Rs.15,21,000/- in the auction held on 1-6- 1988 and paid the entire amount; that his Accountant informed him that during the process of taking out the machinery purchased, the present suit has been filed and machinery was attached; that one of their employees, by name Malhotra, under the guidance of Vinod Kumar Sitani was looked after the said suit; that the said Malhotra abandoned their company in the end of the year 1997 and the Vinod Kumar Sitani retired from the Company in the year 1998; that certain records pertaining the suit transaction were missed; that as soon as the concerned file was traced, he deputed the Accountant to Vijayawada in the first week of September, 2004 for the purpose of securing the information about the stage of the suit and came to know that the suit was decree ex parte on 17-9-1998; that absence on 17-9-1998 was due to lack of communication; that due to missing of the concerned file relating to the purchase of machinery, neither himself nor the staff are in the knowledge of the suit proceedings; and therefore, the delay should be condoned. The above reasons mentioned for condonation of delay, in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation petition, do not constitute sufficient cause within the meaning of Sec.5 of the Limitation Act to condone the inordinate delay of 2168 days in filing the petition to set-aside the ex parte decree dt.17-9-1998 for the following reasons: Firstly, no particulars have been stated as to when Malhotra abandoned the services of the Company; in which month Vinod Kumar Sitani retired as Director from the Company and in which month Yashpal Gambhir became the Director of the Company. Secondly, when the petitioner-company purchased the machinery for Rs.15,21,000/- in the auction held on 1-6-1988 and paid the entire amount, any prudent person will not keep quiet for taking possession of the machinery having spent so much of amount, till the suit is filed in the year 1997, nearly 9 years after purchase of machinery. Thirdly, the petitioner has not mentioned about the nature of the suit, in which the machinery was attached. The above circumstances clearly show that the petitioner is not diligent in prosecuting its case. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. --------------------- A.GOPAL REDDY,J DT.2-12-2010 Kmr