THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1670 & 1863 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: These two revisions arise between the same parties and out of the same proceedings. Hence, they are disposed of through a common order. Respondent No.1 is tenant of the petitioner in respect of the premises bearing No.24-A, Papasaheb Building, Ashok Nagar, Eluru. The petitioner filed R.C.C.No.19 of 2005 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller, Eluru under Section 10 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 against respondent No.1 for eviction. Respondent No.1, in turn, filed O.S.No.768 of 2004 in the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Eluru for injunction against the petitioner in respect of the same property. The R.C.C. was dismissed for default on 07.08.2007. The petitioner filed I.A.No.2670 of 2007 on 07.09.2007 under Order IX Rule 9 C.P.C. with a prayer to set aside the order, dated 07.08.2007, and restore the R.C.C. Notice was given in the I.A. and it was coming up for enquiry. On 04.10.2007, the learned Rent Controller allowed the I.A. by setting aside the order, dated 07.08.2007. On the same day, the petitioner filed a Memo stating that the dispute between herself and respondent No.1 was settled outside the Court and in that view of the matter, she does not intend to press the R.C.C. Acting on the Memo, the learned Rent Controller dismissed the R.C.C. on 04.10.2007 as not pressed. The petitioner filed I.A.No.4926 of 2008 with a prayer to set aside the order, dated 04.10.2007, dismissing the R.C.C. as not pressed. She pleaded that in accordance with the agreed terms, she paid a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to respondent No.1 and the latter was under obligation to withdraw his suit. It was her case that in spite of receiving the amount and dismissal of R.C.C., respondent No.1 did not withdraw the suit and he is proceeding with the trial thereof. Since there was delay of 93 days in filing that application, the petitioner filed I.A.No.4925 of 2008 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Through its order, dated 08.12.2009, the trial Court dismissed the I.A.No.4925 of 2008 and consequently, the other application stood dismissed. Hence, these two revisions. Heard Sri M.L.Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri J.Ugra Narasimha, learned counsel for respondent No.1. The application before the trial Court was the one under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The only issue that needs to be verified in such matters is as to whether the reasons furnished by the petitioner for the delay are convincing or not. However, the trial Court has gone into the merits of the matter and virtually expressed the view that the order, which is sought to be set aside, has been passed correctly. Such a course is not permissible. The necessity to verify the circumstances under which the order, dated 04.10.2007, came to be passed would have arisen only after the delay is condoned and the application to set aside the said order is taken up. Even on merits, the delay of 95 days cannot be said to be enormous. The petitioner had to wait till respondent No.1 took steps for withdrawal of the suit. Whether or not the contention of the parties is correct in this regard, the delay deserves to be condoned and the petitioner should be given an opportunity. Once the Court is convinced that the delay is properly explained, setting aside an order, as prayed for, in the petition virtually becomes a matter of course. The relationship between the parties is not disputed. The fact that the petitioner had to file a Memo not pressing the R.C.C. on the day on which the I.A. filed for restoration of the R.C.C. was allowed, itself is a circumstance, which needs to be taken into account. Hence, the civil revision petitions are allowed, the order in I.A.No.4925 of 2008 is set aside and the delay is condoned. Consequently, I.A.No.4926 of 2008 is allowed setting aside the order, dated 04.10.2007. It shall be open to the parties to take further steps in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt:14.07.2010 kdl