HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 6085 OF 2010. DATED 6th September, 2011. BETWEEN Sharp Kalyani, Sharp India Limited, Koregaon,Bhima, rep. By its Managing Director. …Petitioner and Jallipalli Subrahmanyam @ Babu Rao and anr ….Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 6085 of 2010. ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is ﬁled seeking to assail the order dated 19.4.2010 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Eluru, West Godavari District, dismissing I.A.No. 2347 of 2008 in O.S.No.48 of 2002 ﬁled by the petitioner/defendant to condone the delay of 530 days in ﬁling the petition under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to set aside the judgment and decree dated 12.4.2007 in O.S.No. 48 of 2002. The proprietor of the second respondent- company is the wife of the ﬁrst respondent. They ﬁled the aforesaid suit against the petitioner for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,92,338/- with interest thereon solely on the ground that they have paid the said amount by entering into an agreement. The said suit was decreed on 12.04.2007. Thereafter, the revision petitioner/defendant ﬁled the aforesaid interlocutory application to condone the delay of 530 days in ﬁling the petition under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 12.4.2007, which was came to be dismissed by the Court below under the impugned order. Heard the learned Counsel on either side. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant had taken me through the grounds raised in the revision petition and argued that the Court below erred in dismissing the application ﬁled by the petitioner/defendant praying to condone the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree. He argued that the judgment and decree dated 12.4.2007 is ex parte and therefore the Court below could have considered the petition ﬁled by the petitioner. He submits that when an application is ﬁled to set aside the ex parte orders, normally the Courts would be inclined to condone the delay in ﬁling the petitions to set aside the same so as to advance substantial justice by providing an opportunity to the litigant party for adjudication of the lis on merits. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondents/plaintiﬀs submits that the judgment and decree dated 12.4.2007 was passed after aﬀording ample opportunities to lead evidence and after aﬀording suﬃcient opportunity of hearing and hence the judgment and decree cannot said to be ex parte one. He further argued that the Court below rightly dismissed the application for condonation of delay and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. Perused the case file. There is no general principle saving the party from all mistakes committed either by it or its Counsel. Each case will have to be considered on the particularities of its own special facts. However, the expression 'suﬃcient cause' in Section 5 must receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice and generally delays in preferring appeals are required to be condoned in the interest of justice where no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona ﬁdes is imputable to the party seeking condonation of the delay. In a given case whether explanation furnished would constitute "suﬃcient cause" or not would be depend upon facts of each case. Acceptance of explanation furnished should be the rule and refusal an exception, more so when no negligence or inaction or want of bona ﬁdes can be imputed to the defaulting party. There cannot be a straightjacket formula for accepting or rejecting an explanation furnished for the delay occasioned in taking steps. It has been held by the Apex Court in the matter of M. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy {1998 (7) SCC 123} that the law of limitation is founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim ‘interest reipublicae up sit ﬁnis litium’ (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). The rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively ﬁxed period of time. The Apex Court also held that the length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion, sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases, delay of a very long range can be condoned as the explanation thereof is satisfactory. If we analyze the facts of the present case with the touchstone of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid said case, it is obvious that after ﬁling the suit for recovery of the amount by the respondents/plaintiﬀs, the petitioner/defendant made its appearance and ﬁled written statement and participated in the trial. Later, as there was no representation, the revision petitioner/defendant was set ex parte and the petition ﬁled by the petitioner/defendant to set aside the ex parte order was allowed and thereafter P.W.1 was recalled and P.Ws. 1 to 3 were cross examined. Thereupon the matter was posted for revision petitioner/defendant’s evidence, but they did not adduce any evidence. After aﬀording suﬃcient opportunities, the defendant’s evidence was closed and then the suit was posted for arguments. After hearing both sides on 3.4.2007, the matter was reserved for judgment and on 12.4.2007 the suit was decreed. From the above, it cannot be said that the revision petitioner/defendant did not have full and complete knowledge and notice about the suit proceedings, having indeed been participated in the trial by taking several adjournments. Therefore the case of the revision petitioner/defendant that it did not know whether its counsel participated in the trial cannot be accepted in as much as the defendant itself admitted that upon an application ﬁled by it, P.W.1 was recalled and P.Ws. 1 to 3 were cross examined. Having neglected again thereafter the suit proceedings carelessly, it cannot now put- forth one ground or the other seeking to set aside the judgment and decree passed on 12.4.2007. Furthermore, it is clearly admitted in the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the impugned application that the revision petitioner/defendant is due to the respondents for a sum of Rs.23, 317/-. So too, the petition ﬁled by the revision petitioner/defendant to condone the delay in ﬁling the petition to set aside the ex parte judgment and decree is nothing but to protract the suit proceedings and that there is no cause muchless a suﬃcient cause as enshrained under Section 5 of the Limitation Act,1963. In that view of the matter, the ﬁnding of the trial Court that the decree and judgment dated 12.4.2007 is not an ex parte one does not warrant interference by this Court. I therefore do not see any irregularity or illegality in the order under revision. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. --------------------------------------------- -- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 6th September, 2011. Msnr