IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Revision Petition No.1132 of 2009 Between: Mangali Chinna Parmaiah and others .. Petitioners AND Smt. Mangali Chandrakala @ Laxmi and another .. Respondents Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order, dated 26-08-2008 passed in I.A. No.453 of 2008 in O.S. No.811 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P. Laxma Reddy, Advocate for the petitioners and of Sri Y.S.N. Sarma, Advocate for the respondents, the Court made the following: ORDER: Heard Sri P. Laxma Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri Y.S.N. Sarma, learned counsel for both the respondents. The revision is directed against the dismissal of I.A. No.453 of 2008 in O.S. No.811 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Sangareddy by the order, dated 26-08-2008. The petition was filed for condonation of delay of 700 days in filing a petition to set aside the ex parte decree in the suit, dated 02-03-2006 and the case of the petitioners is that the 1st petitioner, who was looking after the matter on behalf of all the petitioners, was bedridden with severe stomach pain and could not attend the Court when the preliminary decree was passed. It was only on receiving the notices in the final decree petition that the petitioners came to know about the preliminary decree passed ex parte and hence, they sought for condonation of delay of 700 days. The respondents resisted the claim contending that even without any medical certificate showing the alleged sickness of the 1st petitioner, the delay cannot be considered to have been explained and when the petitioners did not attend the Court in spite of receipt of summons and service of status quo order, they were not entitled to any indulgence. The trial Court in the impugned order noted that the 1st petitioner/1st defendant was served with notice on 04-12-2006, but failed to appear before the Court and kept quiet till 29-02-2008 when this petition was filed. The trial Court felt that there was no sufficient cause shown for the day to day delay as required under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and as there was no document in support of the alleged sickness of the 1st petitioner, the delay cannot be condoned, more so when the petitioners also received notices in I.A. No.1376 of 2006 filed under Order XXVI Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petition was accordingly dismissed by the trial Court without costs. The petitioners claim in this revision that substantial rights of the parties in the suit for partition should not be prejudiced on any technical considerations and even if due to lack of legal knowledge the petitioners could not strictly explain the delay, a liberal view has to be taken in construing the existence of sufficient cause in the light of the consistent view taken by the Apex Court that the object should always be to advance substantial justice. The revision petitioners, therefore, desire that pragmatic and common sense approach may be adopted and their rights be protected. The only point for consideration is whether the delay involved is condonable ? Point: The 1st petitioner was aged about 65 years and the very occupation and place of residence of the petitioners show that they would not have been conversant with the niceties of the procedures of judicial proceedings. The 1st petitioner is a rustic agriculturist, 2nd and 4th petitioners are household ladies, while the 3rd petitioner is a young student. The explanation of the petitioners for not contesting the suit immediately on service of summons and notices in December, 2006, was the ill-health of the 1st petitioner due to stomach pain and when the petitioners did not claim that the 1st petitioner got himself treated by any medical practitioner or got himself admitted in any hospital, the petitioners could not have been able to produce any medical evidence in support of their claims. It is not uncommon that such ailments are taken in their stride by the villagers without approaching any doctors, waiting for the pains to subside in natural course or taking recourse to some native medicines or customary methods of relief. Mere absence of a medical certificate, therefore, need not have deterred the trial Court from acting upon the claims of the petitioners, supported by the affidavit on oath and more so, as the rights and interests in valuable properties sought to be subjected to partition could have been lost by the petitioners without a decision on merits for their technical lapses of absence of response on service of summons and notices in the suit. While precedential law is uniform that a practical, pragmatic and commonsense approach solely with a view to advance substantial justice should form the perception which should illuminate consideration of the existence of sufficient cause to condone the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the approach of the trial Court was not liberal as was expected of the Court. Under the circumstances, the delay has to be condoned on appropriate terms which terms should be sufficient to compensate the respondents of the inconvenience caused by the silence of the petitioners for such a length of time. Imposition of costs of Rs.1,000/- may constitute imposition of sufficient terms in this regard. Consequently, the civil revision petition and I.A. No.453 of 2008 in O.S. No.811 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Sangareddy will be allowed on payment of costs of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) by the petitioners to the respondents through their learned counsel on or before 06-11- 2009. In default, the civil revision petition shall stand dismissed. Call on 06-11-2009. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 30-10-2009 Svv