IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SIXTY DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2972 OF 2009 Between: M/s. Karpagam Spinners Pvt. Ltd. & 3 others ..... Petitioners/Petitioners/Defendant Nos.1, 3, 4 & 5 AND M/s. Mukka SubrahmanyamIndustries & 4 others ..... Respondents/Respondents/Defendant Nos.2, 6, 7 & 8 The Court made the following: ORDER: The Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short, “C.P.C.”), is directed against the order, dated 01.05.2009, in I.A.No.554 of 2008 in O.S.No.20 of 2004, on the file of the learned III Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, whereunder and whereby the petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to condone the delay of 825 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree passed in the suit on 23.04.2005 was dismissed. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 2. The petitioners herein are defendant Nos.1, 3, 4 and 5, and the first respondent herein is the plaintiff, in the suit. 3. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Interlocutory Application that, after receipt of summons, the petitioners engaged an advocate and sought time for filing written statement. But the written statement has not been filed. The petitioners were set ex parte and the ex parte decree was passed on 23.04.2005 and they came to know about the said proceedings after receipt of notice of execution proceedings. Hence, the petition. 4. The respondents filed their counter contending that the petitioners never evinced interest in prosecuting the suit and have not contacted their advocate to give instructions to prepare written statement as it is their duty to be in contact with the advocate with regard to status of the case, and that without doing so, they are finding fault with their advocate. They further contended that the petitioners were served notice in execution petition on 08.12.2007 and they appeared before the Court through advocate, filed counters and facing trial, which fact is suppressed in this petition, and the delay of 825 days has not been properly explained and the intention of the petitioners is only to protract the litigation. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that due to communication gap between the learned counsel and the petitioners, the written statement has not been filed; that the petitioners were made to understand that the case was being looked after by the advocate engaged by them, and the delay of 825 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree passed on 23.04.2005 has been properly explained by showing sufficient cause. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the delay has not been properly explained, and that no sufficient cause is shown to condone the abnormal delay of 825 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree passed on 23.04.2005. 7. There cannot be any dispute that to invoke the aid of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the petitioners have to show that by sufficient cause, they were prevented from approaching the Court. The word ‘sufficient cause’ is not defined under the Limitation Act, 1963, but it must mean a cause which is beyond the control of the party invoking the aid of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. No sufficient cause has been shown as to why the petitioners have not filed the written statement though they were served with the suit summons. As a matter of fact, the petitioners received the summons and engaged an advocate. The petitioners and their counsel sought time for filing the written statement. For about six months, the advocate sought time. The petitioners engaged two different advocates to represent the case when the suit was pending. In spite of that fact, the petitioners were not diligent in filing the written statement. 8. Insofar as the present Civil Revision Petition is concerned, the case of the petitioners is that they came to know about the ex parte decree in the month of December, 2007, i.e., after receipt of notice in execution proceedings on 08.12.2007. Even then, the petitioners did not file any petition to set aside the ex parte decree along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 within reasonable time. Having waited for about seven months, the present petition is filed. 9. On their own showing, it is a case where the petitioners are not diligently prosecuting the case. No reason, much less sufficient cause, has been shown for not filing the petition under Order IX Rule 13 of C.P.C. to condone the delay of 825 days. There is no explanation at all for the delay of 825 days. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners placed a strong reliance on the decision reported in Radha Krishna Rai vs. Allahabad Bank & others[1], wherein it is held thus: “On the facts, we are of the view that though the period of delay is unduly long, the circumstances are also very unusual. The petitioner has been a victim of misrepresentation of facts by his own advocate and was kept under the impression that the appeal is pending before the High Court whereas no appeal was in fact filed by the advocate. It cannot be said that the appellant has not been vigilant in prosecuting the appeal. The cause shown by the petitioner is sufficient to justify condoning the delay in filing the appeal. We accordingly condone the delay and remit the matter to the High Court for disposing of the appeal in accordance with law.” The decision has no application because there is no pleading in this petition that the petitioners were misrepresented by their advocates and that it is not shown that the petitioners were under the impression that an appeal was pending before the High Court. 11. Therefore, the trial Court, upon consideration of the material on record, rightly dismissed the same. The said order is not shown to be incorrect or illegal in view of the fact that none of the finding is shown to be incorrect. The order under challenge needs no interference. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the order, dated 01.05.2009, in I.A.No.554 of 2008 in O.S.No.20 of 2004, on the file of the learned III Additional District Judge, Karimnagar. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ (K.C.BHANU, J) Dated: 6th November, 2009. KL [1] (2000) 9 Supreme Court Cases 733