THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH C.R.P. NO. 4667 OF 2010 DATE: 2.9.2011 BETWEEN: Union Trading Company and another petitioner And M/s. V S R Spices , Vijayawada Respondent Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Ch Dhanamjaya Counsel for the respondent: The Court made the following order: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH C.R.P. NO. 4667 OF 2010 ORDER: This revision is filed against the order in I.A. No. 338 of 2010 in O.S. No. 67 of 2009 dated 15.9.2010 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Guntur in dismissing an application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay of 194 days in filing a petition to set aside the exparte decree dated 10.8.2010. The petitioners herein are defendants. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of money in O.S. No. 67 2009 against the petitioners herein on the ground of supply of inferior quality of Chilli, turmeric and Coriander power. The petitioners state that they are residents of Chennai and on receipt of summons engaged an advocate who filed his vakalat and were under a bonafide impression that their counsel is diligently pursuing the matter. It is further stated that the second petitioner herein became sick from 15.7.2009 to 30.9.2009 on account of acrobat hypertension and again became sick during the period from 20.1.2010 to 14.2.2010 and on recovery contacted his counsel on 20.3.2010 and came to know that the since he has not filed the written statement, he was set exparte on 22.7.2009 and exparte decree was passed on 10.8.2009. Therefore, he filed a petition to set aside the exparte decree along with an application to condone the delay of 194 days in filing such an application. The respondent/plaintiff contested the said application and filed counter affidavit stating that the first defendant is a partnership firm and in the absence of one partner, the firm has transacted the business and the other partners can take steps to file the written statement and participate in the suit proceedings. The Court below on consideration of the matter, held that the petitioner was able to explain the delay of 152 days out of 194 days but could not explain the delay of 45 days and accordingly dismissed the application. Heard the learned counsel for petitioners and perused the material available on record. Having regard to the fact that the suit is for recovery of money and particularly in view of the fact that the Court below held that the petitioner was able to explain the delay of 152 days out of 194 days, instead of dismissing the application, it ought to have condoned the delay subject to certain conditions. In the circumstances, the order in I A No. 338 of 2010 dated 15.9.2010 is set aside and the delay of 194 days in filing a set aside petition is condoned subject to petitioners pay costs of Rs.5000/- (rupees five thousand only) to the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Guntur, within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On deposit of the costs, the Court below to take up the application to set aside the exparte order and proceed with the matter on its own merits and in accordance with law. It is needless to mention that in default of payment of costs as indicated above, the revision stands dismissed. Subject to above directions, the revision petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________ V ESWARAIAH,J DATE: 2.9.2011 TVK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH C.R.P. NO. 4667 OF 2010 DATE:2.9.2011