THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 656 OF 2011 Date: 16.06.2011 Between: Smt. Kaila Adi Lakshmi and others ..... PETITIONERS AND M/s. Sridhar Agencies, Narsapur ..... RESPONDENT The Court made the following:- THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 656 OF 2011 O R D E R : The revision petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No.58 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Narsapuram, West Godavari District. The respondent herein filed O.S.No.58 of 2007 for recovery of amount and the same was decreed ex parte on 17.08.2007. Subsequently, the revision petitioners filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C. along with I.A.No.1894 of 2008 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 375 days in filing the said application. After hearing both the parties, the Court below dismissed I.A.No.1894 of 2008 by order dated 02.03.2010 and aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. Admittedly pursuant to the decree dated 17.08.2007, the decreeholder/respondent herein filed E.P.No.31 of 2008 and the application to set aside the ex parte decree came to be filed by the revision petitioners pending the execution proceedings. However, this is a case where the Revision petitioners entered appearance in the main suit on receipt of summons and they were subsequently set ex parte for not filing the written statement and consequently the suit was decreed ex parte. It is also relevant to note that the suit promissory note was allegedly executed by the husband of the 1st petitioner and the suit was filed after the death of her husband. The petitioners 2 to 4 are children of the 1st petitioner who are all very young. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the plea of the 1st petitioner that she left to her parents’ house after the death of her husband and was not aware of the ex parte decree till notices in the execution petition were served on her cannot be held to be totally unbelievable. At any rate, it is not a case to attribute negligence or deliberate inaction to the petitioners. Therefore, it would be appropriate to condone the delay on terms. Accordingly, following the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in VAKATI PRABHAKAR REDDY v. TENALI MOHAN RAO in LPA.No.128 of 2002, dated 14.06.2002, I deem it appropriate to condone the delay subject to payment of exemplary costs of Rs.5,000/- . The petitioners shall also deposit Rs.45,000/- to the credit of O.S.No.58 of 2007 which shall remain in deposit till appropriate orders are passed by the Court below. For payment of exemplary costs as well as deposit of Rs.45,000/-, the petitioners are hereby granted four weeks time from the date of receipt of this order. Accordingly, the order under Revision is hereby set aside and I.A.No.1894 of 2008 is allowed subject to the above conditions. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ​ ____________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 16.06.2011 Ivd