IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs.5325 AND 5342 OF 2011 Between : S.Salauddin ... PETITIONER A N D The State Bank of India …RESPONDENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs.5325 AND 5342 OF 2011 ORDER: C.R.P.No.5325 of 2011, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘C.P.C’), is directed against the order, dated 19.02.2010, in I.A.No.1028 of 2009 in O.S.No.446 of 2004 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool, whereunder and whereby, the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short, ‘the Act’) to condone the delay of 1191 days in filing the petition under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, was dismissed. 2. C.R.P.No.5342 of 2011, under Section 115 C.P.C is directed against the order, dated 23.07.2010, in C.M.A.No.12 of 2010 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Kurnool, whereunder and whereby, the appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(d) C.P.C. to set aside the order, dated 19.02.2010 in I.A.No.1029 of 2009 in O.S.No.446 of 2004, was dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner did not receive the summons in the suit; that therefore, he did not attend the Court on that day when the case was posted; that even after filing of the suit, the petitioner is making payments in respect of the loan taken by him and hence, he prays to give an opportunity to the petitioner to contest the suit. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that in the said suit, the petitioner remained ex parte; that no sufficient reason was given for condoning the abnormal delay of 1191 days; that therefore, the trial Court dismissed the same and hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 5. The suit is filed by the respondent Bank against the petitoner for recovery of money; and on 02.11.2005, the Court below passed ex parte preliminary decree. The word sufficient cause is not defined under Section 5 of the Act. But, it must mean a cause which is beyond the control of the party invoking the aid of said provision. The word ‘sufficient cause’ should receive liberal interpretation so as to advance justice to the parties. But, at the same time, if there is inaction or negligence attributable to the party invoking aid of the Section, no indulgence can be shown. 6. There is a delay of 1191 days in filing the petition under Order IX Rule 13 CPC. No explanation has been given by the petitioner, except stating that he did not receive the summons in the Suit. When there is no material filed to show that he had not received summons in the suit and in the absence of any explanation, the trial Court exercised its discretion in dismissing the petition filed under Section 5 of the Act and that order needs no interference by this Court. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that even after passing of the decree, the petitioner made several payments to the Bank. Therefore, the respondent-Bank has to take note of that fact and deduct those amounts. Since the delay in filing the application under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. is not condoned, the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC has to be rejected and accordingly rejected. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J DECEMBER 09, 2011. YVL