Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Civil Revision Petition No.1651 of 2011 Dated 29th July, 2011 Between: Dhanavath Ravindra Naik …Petitioner And Madhuru Ananthamma …Respondent Counsel for the petitioner : Sri M.Rajamalla Reddy Counsel for respondent : None appeared The Court made the following: ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition arise out of order, dated 24.02.2011, in E.A.No.288 of 2010 in E.P.No.32 of 2010 on the file of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Miryalguda. Even though a notice was sent to the respondent, the same was returned unserved with the endorsement “addressee left without instructions to sender”. Learned counsel for the petitioner filed a memo to this effect along with the postal cover containing the said acknowledgment. In the circumstances, this Court has treated that there is deemed service of notice on the respondent as per Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, as the notice was properly stamped and sent by registered post to the correct address of the respondent. The short issue that arises for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition is whether the order under revision dismissing the petitioner’s application for condonation of delay of 55 days in filing the application under Order 21 Rule 106 read with Section 151 C.P.C. for setting aside th e ex parte order, dated 25.03.2010, in E.P.No.32 of 2010 deserves to be revised. The petitioner suffered an ex parte decree in the suit filed by the respondent for perpetual injunction. The respondent filed E.P.No.32 of 2010 for sending the petitioner to civil prison for the alleged disobedience of the decretal order. As the petitioner failed to contest the said E.P., despite receiving notice, he was set ex parte. The petitioner has filed an application for setting aside the ex parte order. As there was delay of 55 days in filing such application, he has filed E.A.No.288 of 2010 for condonation of delay. He pleaded that after receiving notice from the Court in the E.P., he left for Kerala after requesting his father to consult his lawyer and contest the case and that, due to his old age, his father could not approach the lawyer and contest the case, as a result of which, the petitioner was set ex parte. The Court below has held that the petitioner failed to substantiate the above pleas relating to his leaving for Kerala and his father’s illness. In strict sense, the impugned order of the Court below does not suffer from any material irregularity or illegality. However, while dealing with the applications for condonation of delay, the Courts have to adopt a some what liberal approach keeping in view the consequences arising from rejection of such applications. In the instant case, the allegation against the petitioner is that he has deliberately violated the injunction order. The immediate consequence of dismissal of the petitioner’s application for condonation of delay would be his civil imprisonment as he will be disabled from contesting the case. Having regard to the nature of the dispute between the parties, I am of the opinion that even though the petitioner failed to show proper diligence in prosecuting the case, it would be in the interest of justice that he be given one more opportunity to contest the case. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed by setting aside the order, dated 24.02.2011, in E.A.No.288 of 20120 in E.P.No.32 of 2010 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Miryalguda. The delay is accordingly condoned, subject to the petitioner paying costs of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) to the respondent within a period of four weeks from today. On the petitioner filing proof of payment of costs to the respondent, the E.A. filed for setting aside the ex parte order shall be numbered and disposed of on merits. Conversely, if the petitioner fails to pay the costs to the respondent, the order under revision will stand confirmed. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 29th July, 2011 DR