IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTYNINETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Revision Petition No.4476 of 2010 Between: Munna Begum and 4 others .. Petitioners AND Bashir Miya and another .. Respondents ORDER: The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the docket order dated 29-06-2010 in I.A.No.780 of 2010 in O.S.No.538 of 2007 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy. The application was filed by the defendants seeking condonation of delay of 536 days in filing the petition under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the ex parte decree dated 25-08-2008. The 1st defendant in his affidavit in support of the application stated that they engaged an advocate on 8-10-2007 and were ultimately set ex parte on 17-01-2008 when they failed to file the counter in I.A.No.1447 of 2007 and written statement in the suit and an ex parte decree was passed in favour of the respondents-plaintiffs after recording their evidence on 25-08- 2008. He claimed that he came to know about passing of ex parte decree only on 02-03-2010 when they received copies of notices of the execution petition. He claimed that due to ill-health in his old age and due to absence of any other assistance for him, he failed to contact his counsel in the meanwhile for preparation of the written statement, and therefore, he desired the ex parte decree to be set aside after condoning the delay in filing the application for the purpose, more so, as the suit involves rights in immovable properties and as the plaintiffs are basing their claim on false and fabricated documents. The plaintiffs in their counter affidavit contended that the defendants engaged an advocate on 8-10-2007, took time from time to time for filing written statement and counters and had knowledge of their being set ex parte on 17-01-2008 and the suit being decreed on 25-08-2008. They contended that the application is intended to only drag on the proceedings without any bona fides and they further claimed that the condonation of delay cannot be a matter of right without satisfying the court about the reasons for the delay. Hence, they desired the petition to be dismissed. On such pleadings, the trial Court passed the impugned order stating that considering the age of the deponent and the principle that a lis should be adjudicated on merits, it was inclined to consider the plea of the defendants by imposing certain conditions, and accordingly, it allowed the petition subject to payment of costs of Rs.500/-. The plaintiffs are before this Court with this revision contending that the delay of 536 days was condoned without any sufficient cause and without any finding on the existence of sufficient cause and without any adjudication on merits. There was no reasonable explanation for the delay, which alone would entitle a person to seek the benefits of Section 5 of the Limitation Act and the non-production of any medical certificate or document will not entitle them to have the delay condoned. Heard Sri K. Surender, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri P. Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents. The point for consideration is whether the order of condonation of delay is legally sustainable? Section 5 of the Limitation Act enables an application to be admitted even after prescribed period of limitation only if the applicant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within the prescribed period of limitation. The satisfaction of the Court and the existence of sufficient cause are, therefore, preconditions for exercise of the judicial discretion vested in the court under the said provision. In the present case, the impugned order was passed with reference to the age of the deponent and the necessity to determine a cause on merits, but not with reference to either the existence of any cause for not making the application within the prescribed period of limitation or the satisfaction of the Court about the existence of such sufficient cause. Though Section 5 of the Limitation Act was uniformly held to be subject to liberal interpretation in application, a situation where there is no application of mind to the fundamental prerequisites for exercise of the judicial discretion under the provision is not contemplated. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the reasons claimed by the defendants justifying their request for condonation of delay or the opposition of the plaintiffs for considering any such request, the matter has to be remitted back to the trial Court for a determination on merits in accordance with law. While the setting aside of the impugned order should not be misunderstood as an expression of opinion in favour of or against the contentions of either party and while the need for construing procedural provisions liberally in order to advance the cause of substantial justice by determination of the questions in issue between the parties as far as possible on merits need no reemphasis, the revision petition has to be ordered accordingly. In the result, the docket order dated 29-06-2010 in I.A.No.780 of 2010 in O.S.No.538 of 2007 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy, is set aside and the said application is remitted back to the trial Court for a determination on merits in accordance with law after every reasonable opportunity to both parties to adduce such evidence or to place such material as they wish to produce or place before the Court. The Civil Revision Petition is ordered accordingly without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 29-10-2010 Ksn