THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI Civil Revision Petition No. 2648 of 2010 Dated: 22.10.2010 Between: P.Narasimha Reddy, Ananthapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND K. Lakshmi Reddy, Ananthapur Distrtict. .....RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI Civil Revision Petition No. 2648 of 2010 ORDER: This revision petition is directed against the order dated 24.11.2009 in E.A.No.460 of 2008 in E.P.No.7 of 2004 in O.S.No.111 of 1992 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapur. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff who filed O.S.No.111 of 1992 for recovery of money due from defendant/respondent herein. The suit was decreed and pursuant thereto, the plaintiff/decree-holder/revision petitioner filed E.P.No.7 of 2004 for realisation of the decretal amount by way of sale of petition schedule properties. By order dated 13.07.2005 the E.P. was dismissed for default as the decree-holder/revision petitioner failed to appear. In February, 2008 the decree holder/revision petitioner filed an application for restoration of the execution petition along with E.A.No.460 of 2008 under Order 21 Rule 106 of C.P.C. for condonation of 927 days of delay in filing the restoration petition. In the affidavit filed in support of the application it was pleaded that as his mother was admitted in a hospital at Banglore with Hypertension and Asthama and his presence was necessary to look after her, he could not meet his advocate. The application was opposed by the judgment debtor/respondent herein stating that no proper reasons were explained for condonation of inordinate delay. It was also contended that the E.P. was settled long back and the decree holder had received the entire E.P. amount in the presence of village elders promising that he would not press the execution petition. It was alleged that the present application was filed with mala fide intention for unlawful gain. The Court below after hearing both parties dismissed E.A.No.460 of 2008 by order dated 24.11.2009 holding that no proper explanation could be offered for the delay. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed by the decree-holder. Heard the learned counsel for both parties. Order 21 Rule 106 provides for setting aside the ex parte order and as per sub-rule (3), the application shall be made within 30 days from the date of the order. Sub-rule (4) as added by the amendment of High Court of A.P. further provides that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act shall be applicable to all the applications under sub- rule (3). Thus, it is clear that the applicant has to satisfy the Court that he has sufficient cause for not preferring the application within the time prescribed. In the instant case, the only explanation offered by the decree- holder for the delay was that his mother was admitted in a hospital at Banglore and as he had to take care of her, he was unable to meet his advocate in time. It is true that to substantiate his plea, he filed a doctor certificate. However, it was found by the Court below that as per the said certificate the petitioner’s mother was suffering from Hypertension and Asthama and she was under treatment and she was advised to take treatment with the help of an attendant. It was also found by the Court below that the certificate was issued by the Medical Officer, Ananthapur whereas in the affidavit filed in support of the application it was pleaded that the petitioner’s mother was admitted in a hospital at Banglore. Having regard to the discrepancies noticed, the petitioner’s plea was disbelieved by the Court below and the application was dismissed. Admittedly, there is a long delay of 927 days. Whereas the E.P. was dismissed for default by order dated 13.07.2005, the petition for restoration was filed long thereafter on 07.02.2008. The explanation offered by the petitioner on the ground of ill-health of his mother who was stated to be suffering from Hypertension and Asthma, even assuming to be true, in my considered opinion, does not constitute “sufficient cause” for condonation of inordinate delay of 927 days. Therefore, the Court below cannot be held to have committed any error in dismissing E.A.No.460 of 2008. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 22.10.2010 KLP