IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.R.P.NO.930 OF 2009 Date:03.02.2011 Between:- Thota Indira Paramahamsa ..Petitioner And The Mandal Revenue Officer, Chirala, Prakasam District and two others. .. Respondents ORDER:- The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 5- 1-2009 in I.A.No.1307 of 2007 in O.S.No.84 of 2001 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Chirala, Prakasam District, whereunder and whereby, the petition filed by the respondents, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act (for short, ‘the Act’) to condone the delay of 1690 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree, was allowed. The Mandal Revenue Officer (for short, ‘M.R.O’) filed an affidavit stating that there was a communication gap between him and the then Government Pleader and therefore, there was a delay to file the application to set aside the ex parte decree. To substantiate the same, the M.R.O. was examined as P.W.1. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that inspite of giving notice under Ex.R-1 on 10-02-2003, which was acknowledged by the M.R.O under Ex.R-2, they have not filed any petition within time and therefore, no explanation was given for condoning the abnormal delay in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree. The word “sufficient cause” in Section 5 of the Act is not defined but it must mean a cause, which is beyond the control of the party invoking the right of the said provision. Any person with due diligence and care could have avoided the delay can be said to be sufficient cause. The reason given by the M.R.O. is that there was a communication gap between his office and the office of the Government Pleader. It seems that the then Government Pleader has not intimated about the factum of decreeing the suit to the M.R.O. They could not file the petition under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. to set aside the ex parte decree. So the explanation given by the M.R.O. has been accepted by the trial Court. Since the trial Court exercised its discretion in accepting the explanation given by the M.R.O., that needs no interference by this Court. However, while condoning the delay, some costs ought to have been imposed by the trial Court so that it would meet the ends of justice. Hence, the impugned order needs no interference of this Court but however, allowing of petition by the trial Court is subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the respondents. The petition is allowed accordingly. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with the above observation. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 3rd February, 2011 AMD