IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.573 OF 2010 Between: K.K.Mohan Rao ..... PETITIONER AND S. Saroja Rao and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.573 OF 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 02.02.2010 in I.A.No.50 of 2009 in O.S.No.468 of 1999 on the file of XIV Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby, the application filed to condone the delay of 1971 days in filing the petition to set aside the exparte decree dated 30.06.2003 passed in O.S.No.468 of 1999 on the file of XIV Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, was dismissed. 2. There was a delay of 1971 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree dated 30.06.2003 passed in O.S.No.468 of 1999 on the file of XIV Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The trial Court has dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioner has failed to give a sufficient cause for his absence. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the summons have not been served on the petitioner in the suit; that the petitioner was not having any knowledge about the filing of the suit and passing of the decree; and that even after receipt of summons in the execution petition, he was given wrong advise that all the pleas can be taken in the execution proceedings; and that he filed the petition to condone the delay of 1971 days under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to set aside the ex parte decree and therefore, she prays to condone the delay. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the brothers of the petitioner contested the suit and therefore, he must be having knowledge of filing of the suit; that the petitioner is the chairman of the Company and therefore, it is probable to infer that the petitioner is having knowledge of filing of the suit; that even after receipt of the summons from the execution Court, he kept quite for nine months without filing any application to set aside an exparte decree, and that there was no explanation given by the petitioner to condone the abnormal delay, the petition was rightly dismissed by trial Court and hence, he prays that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 5. The word ‘sufficient cause’ is not defined under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, but it can be inferred that it must mean a cause, which is beyond the control of the party invoking the aid of the section. For any sufficient reason, if a person is prevented in approaching the Court, it can be said to be a sufficient cause so as to condone the delay. No doubt, in condoning the delay, the petitioner need not explain each days delay, but overall explanation for the delay must be shown. It is thus necessary before a party can claim indulgence under this section that he should prove not only the existence of sufficient cause for the delay, but also he was reasonably diligent in prosecuting his proceedings. 6. Admittedly, the summons have been effected by way of paper publication and thereafter ex parte decree was passed against the petitioner. When the decree holder in the suit filed an execution petition, admittedly, the petitioner received the summons in the month of March, 2008. However, the present petition is filed in the month of December, 2008. Even though it can be presumed that he was not having knowledge of the suit proceedings, but after receipt of summons in execution proceedings he must be having knowledge of the suit. If really he is not having knowledge with regard to the filing of the suit and the passing of the decree, certainly he would have filed an application to set aside the exparte decree after receipt of summons in execution proceedings. In view of the fact that the brothers of the petitioner filed vakalat and contested the suit and petitioner being Managing Director of the Company, it may be safely inferred that he must be having knowledge about the filing of the suit. After receiving summon from the Execution Court the petitioner has not given a reason of whatsoever for not approaching the trial Court for filing a petition to set aside the ex parte decree. Therefore, no sufficient cause was given nor the delay was properly explained by the petitioner for not coming to the Court in time. Hence, in the absence of any sufficient cause the trial Court rightly dismissed the petition and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J April 09, 2010 MD