THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1471 OF 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short, “C.P.C.”) is directed against the order, dated 04.02.2010, in I.A.No.2109 of 2006 in O.S.No.25 of 2006, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Tanuku, whereunder and whereby, the petition filed by the petitioner/defendant, under Order IX Rule 13 and Section 151 C.P.C. read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, (for short, “the Act”) to set aside the ex parte decree passed against the petitioner on 05.04.2006 in O.S.No.25 of 2006 on the file of said Court, was dismissed on the ground that the delay has not been properly explained. 2. Heard both sides. 3. O.S.No.25 of 2006 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Tanuku, was filed by the respondent herein for recovery of amount due basing on a suit promissory note alleged to have been executed by the petitioner herein. In spite of receiving summons in the said suit, the petitioner did not attend the trial Court on 28.03.2006 and therefore, an ex parte decree was passed on 05.04.2006 against the petitioner herein. Subsequently, the respondent herein filed Execution Petition No.100 of 2006 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, for arrest of the petitioner herein. The present application is filed by the petitioner herein on 10.10.2006, to set aside the ex parte decree. 4. The word ‘sufficient cause’ is not defined under Section 5 of the Act. But, it must mean a cause, which is beyond the control of the party invoking the aid of the said provision. Any reasonable cause, which prevents any person from approaching the Court, is a sufficient cause to condone the delay. The word sufficient cause implies the presence of legal and adequate reason. It is for the defendant to satisfy the Court that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner herein has received summons in the Original Suit and also from the Executing Court. Except bald allegation that the petitioner was a heart patient and hospitalized, there is no other explanation given by the petitioner for the abnormal delay. To substantiate the case of the petitioner that he was hospitalized, no other material is filed. Therefore, there are no grounds to set aside the impugned order. After filing of the Civil Revision Petition, this Court by order, dated 23.04.2010, in C.R.P.M.P.No.1981 of 2010, directed the petitioner to deposit half of the decretal amount together with interest and costs, within eight weeks from the date of that order and that order has been complied with. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J September 08, 2010 MD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHT DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1471 OF 2010 Between: Nandivada Seshu Lakshminarayana .....PETITIONER AND Adivishnu Sesharatnam ....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1471 OF 2010 September 08, 2010