THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1183 of 2010 ORDER: Petitioners, who are defendants in O.S.No.304 of 2008, filed this Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 CPC questioning the order, dated 19.02.2010 passed by II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, dismissing I.A.No.554 of 2009 in O.S.No.304 of 2008. Respondents filed the above suit for eviction and consequential possession. Earlier, in the suit, the petitioners were set ex parte and therefore, they filed I.A.No.19 of 2009 seeking to set aside the ex parte order and the same was allowed by the Court below by imposing costs. It is stated that on the ground that the the petitioners have not paid the costs, the Court below passed an order dismissing the said I.A. Consequent to dismissal of the said I.A., the suit was decreed ex parte on 19.03.2009. Thereafter, the petitioners filed I.A.No.555 of 2009 seeking to set aside the ex parte decree, dated 19.03.2009 passed in O.S.No.304 of 2008 and as there was a delay of 50 days in filing such I.A., they have filed I.A.No.554 of 2009 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. In the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.554 of 2009, to show the reason for delay, the first petitioner has stated that in the months of February and March 2009, his children and mother suffered from viral infections and he was taking care of them and therefore, he could not contact his counsel. A counter-affidavit was filed opposing the said I.A. The Court below, by the impugned order, mainly on the ground that earlier also, the petitioners filed I.A.No.19 of 2009 seeking to set aside the ex parte order and when the same was allowed on condition of payment of costs, they did not pay the same and that they failed to produce the medical bills in support of the statement made by the first petitioner in his affidavit, rejected I.A.No.554 of 2009. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in spite of showing sufficient reason, delay of 50 days in filing I.A.No.555 of 2009 for setting aside the ex parte decree, dated 19.03.2009 in O.S.No.304 of 2008, was not condoned. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioners are not diligent in prosecuting their case and in the earlier point of time, though an opportunity was given, they did not make use of it. It is further submitted that though it was pleaded by the first petitioner that his family members are not well, no sufficient material was placed before the Court below in support thereof. I have perused the copy of the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.554 of 2009 and also the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents. In that affidavit, in categorical terms, it was stated by the first petitioner that the application could not be filed within the time because his children and mother were affected with viral infections and as such he was attending to them. It is to be noted that the suit is for eviction and possession. The sole statement of the first petitioner that as his family members were affected with viral infections, he was attending to them, itself constitutes a sufficient ground to condone the delay of 50 days in filing I.A.No.555 of 2009 to set aside the ex parte decree. The Court below by the impugned order without considering the same and mainly referring to the conduct of the petitioners in not paying the costs imposed while allowing I.A.No.19 of 2009, rejected I.A.No.554 of 2009. In view of the reason stated in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.554 of 2009, I deem it appropriate that it is a fit case to condone the delay and give an opportunity to the petitioners to pursue I.A.No.555 of 2009. In that view of the matter, the order under challenge, dated 19.02.2010 passed in I.A.No.554 of 2009 in O.S.No.304 of 2008 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, is hereby set aside and consequently, I.A.No.554 of 2009 stands allowed as prayed for. Further, the Court below is directed to consider I.A.No.555 of 2009 afresh by giving opportunity to both the parties. For the aforesaid reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 7th APRIL, 2010. kvni