IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 402 OF 2011 Between: Sirrolla Venkata Ramana and another …PETITIONERS AND Manikindi Jafar Hussain ...RESPONDENT The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 402 OF 2011 O R D E R: This Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) is directed against the order and decree, dated 22.09.2010 in I.A.No.785 of 2009 in O.S.No.279 of 2007 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Banaganapalle, whereunder and whereby, an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short, ‘the Act’) to condone the delay of 447 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree, dated 31.12.2007 passed in the suit, was dismissed on the ground that no proof was filed to show that the petitioners were staying at Karnakata. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners went to Karnataka to eke out their livelihood and so, the delay occurred in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree; that the delay has been properly explained; that if the suit was not contested, the substantive rights of the parties would be affected since it is a suit for declaration and permanent injunction and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the same on the ground that the delay has not been satisfactorily explained; that the trial Court rightly dismissed the I.A.; that in the absence of any proper explanation, the question of condoning the delay does not arise and hence, he prays to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition. 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. Under sufficient reason or cause if a person was unable to approach the Court within the period prescribed under the law, then it can be said to be a sufficient cause. 5 The suit is filed by the respondent against the petitioners for declaration and permanent injunction. On 31.12.2007, the trial Court passed ex parte decree against the petitioners. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an application to set aside the ex parte decree with a delay of 447 days. The reason given by the petitioners is that to eke out their livelihood they went to Karnataka for about one year and therefore, they were prevented by a sufficient reason in not contesting the case. But, the trial Court has not accepted the same. The reason given by the petitioners that they went to Karnataka to eke out their livelihood, appears to be a proper cause. There is nothing unusual for persons like the petitioners to go to Karnataka to eke out their livelihood. Hence, the trial Court ought to have condoned the delay of 447 days. As the reason given by the petitioners is sufficient, the delay of 447 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree can be condoned. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order and decree, dated 22.09.2010 in I.A.No.785 of 2009 in O.S.No.279 of 2007 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Banaganapalle. I.A.No. 785 of 2009 in O.S.No.279 of 2007 is allowed condoning the delay of 447 days in filing a petition to set aside the ex parte decree. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J JULY 21, 2011 YVL