HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR C.R.P.No.1977 of 2006 O R D E R: No representation for the respondents. This revision has been filed challenging the order dated 04.01.2006 in I.A.No.20 of 2005 in O.S.No.20 of 2003 passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Pattikonda. The brief facts of this case are as follows: The petitioner herein is the defendant in O.S.No.20 of 2003. Basing on the endorsement that he refused to receive the summons he was set ex parte on 08.04.2003 and an ex parte decree was passed on the same day. He filed a separate suit in O.S.No.188 of 2003 against the respondent herein for permanent injunction. In the said suit the 1st respondent filed a written statement on 13.10.2003, and contended that the petitioner herein was set ex parte in O.S.No.20 of 2003. The said written statement was filed on 13.10.2003 in O.S.No.188 of 2003. The petitioner herein filed I.A.No.20 of 2005 to condone the delay of 587 days in filing the petition under Order 9, Rule 13 C.P.C. to set aside the ex parte decree dated 08.04.2003. The specific plea of the petitioner is that he was not aware of the filing of the suit in O.S.No.20 of 2003 and that his Advocate appearing on his behalf in O.S.No.20 of 2003 did not inform him that the respondent had taken a plea about the passing of ex parte decree in O.S.No.20 of 2003 and that the delay was not wilful and that soon after coming to know about the passing of the ex parte decree, he filed the application to condone the delay. The respondent herein filed a counter denying the averments of the petitioner. The lower Court held that the contention of the petitioner that his Advocate did not inform him about passing of ex parte decree is not a sufficient cause and it is deemed that the petitioner has knowledge about the passing of the decree from the date of filing of the written statement and therefore the petitioner failed to explain the day-to-day delay. The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is aged 70 years and is illiterate and that the petitioner has categorically stated that he was not informed by his advocate and in the circumstances, the lower Court ought to have considered the petition as he has shown sufficient cause for condoning the delay. He has also relied on the judgment of this Court in Reddy Lakshmi Kantham v V.Satyanarayana[1]. Admittedly, the petitioner is aged 71 years on the date of the filing of the application to condone the delay. He had taken a specific plea that he has not received the summons in the said suit and that he was set ex parte on 08.04.2003. It is also his case that the respondent filed written statement on 13.10.2003 taking a specific plea that the petitioner was set ex parte on 08.04.2003 in O.S.No.20 of 2003 and by over sight his advocate did not inform him about the filing of the written statement. In similar circumstances, this Court in the above cited decision observed as follows: “A suit for against the petitioner was decreed ex parte and on 13.01.2001 the petitioner contends that on account of her old age, she is unable to move to any place, and despite the same, and filed written statement after receiving notice in the suit. This aspect is in fact borne out by record. The contention of the petitioner that she did not receive any information from her counsel, thereafter remains unrebutted. The trial Court referred to number of decisions to the effect that the failure on the part of a counsel cannot be a ground to set aside the ex parte decree. Whatever be the strength of such a view the fact remains that an old lady of 70 years cannot be penalized on account of the lapse on the part of her advocate keep her informed about the proceedings in the suit”. In this case, the fact remains that the petitioner himself filed a separate suit in O.S.No.188 of 2003 and the said suit was also dismissed for default. However, he contends that he has withdrawn the said suit after coming to know about decree in O.S.No.20 of 2003. The age of the parties, their illiteracy and rural back ground have to be taken into consideration. When a party contends that he was not informed by his advocate, all the above factors have to be taken into consideration. Unless it appears that a false plea was taken by a party to protract the litigation or that the petition was frivolous, normally the Court should be liberal in dealing with the applications of condonation of delay. In view of the same, the impugned order is set aside and consequently the ex parte order dated 08.04.2003 in O.S.No.20 of 2003 also stands set aside. The lower Court is directed to issue notices to both the parties and their counsel and proceed with the matter in accordance with law. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. ______________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR,J 16th December, 2010. PNV [1] 2005(2) ALD (NOC 96)