THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.2997 of 2011 Date:08th November, 2011 Between: Shaik Sabeerunnisa W/o.Abdul Gaffar ..... Petitioner AND V.Amarnath S/o.Madhusudhan Rao .....Respondent *** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.2997 of 2011 ORDER: The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 06.07.2011, passed in I.A.No.489 of 2011 in O.S.No.347 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa, Kadapa District, whereby and whereunder, the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 33 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree, dated 25.08.2010, passed in O.S.No.347 of 2009. 2. The petitioner is the defendant and whereas the respondent is the plaintiff in O.S.No.347 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa, Kadapa District. The plaintiff filed the suit for eviction and recovery of possession. The defendant filed written statement resisting the claim of the plaintiff. The plaintiff adduced evidence on his behalf. While the suit was coming up for the evidence of the defendant, the defendant failed to adduce evidence on her behalf and thereby an ex parte decree came to be passed on 25.08.2010. Subsequently, the defendant filed a petition under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex parte decree and moved I.A.No.489 of 2011 to condone the delay of 33 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree. She stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that she could not appear before the Court as she was taking treatment for her ailment. The plaintiff filed counter resisting the application. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, proceeded to dismiss the petition on the ground that the petitioner/defendant failed to offer sufficient reasons to condone the delay of 33 days, by order, dated 06.07.2011. Hence, this revision. 3. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 28.07.2011. The respondent entered appearance through a counsel. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that substantial rights of the petitioner/defendant are involved in the suit and the petitioner/defendant could not adduce evidence on her behalf because of her ill-health and the same has been evidenced by the a certificate issued by the doctor and in which case, the order impugned in the revision is liable to be set aside. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff submits that the petitioner/defendant despite granting many adjournments failed to adduce evidence and therefore, the trial Court is justified in dismissing the delay condonation petition. 7. It is a matter of record that the respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for eviction and recovery of possession. Therefore, it can be said that substantial rights of the petitioner/defendant are involved in the suit. The petitioner/defendant has stated in the affidavit that she could not proceed with the trial because of her ill-health. The guiding principle for delay condonation petition is that justice should not be sacrificed on the alter of technicalities, but at the same time, the Court should not lose sight of the statutory requirement of existence of sufficient cause and condone the delay on equitable grounds. 8. Keeping in view the rights of the parties, which are required to be adjudicated in the suit and number of days delay, the trial Court ought to have allowed the application subject to certain terms and conditions. 9. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order, dated 06.07.2011, passed in I.A.No.489 of 2011 in O.S.No.347 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa, Kadapa District, and thereby condoning the delay of 33 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree, dated 25.08.2010, passed in O.S.No.347 of 2009, subject to the petitioner/defendant depositing Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) within two weeks from today in the trial Court. Failing compliance of the said condition, the order impugned in the revision shall stand confirmed. As and when the amount is deposited, the respondent/plaintiff is at liberty to withdraw the same. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:08th November, 2011. cs THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.2997 of 2011 Date:08th November, 2011