IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD SATURDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH (29TH) DAY OF JANUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.6617 of 2004 Between: Saraswathamma … Petitioner/D.1 And: R. Sundararamaiah & others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.6617 of 2004 ORDER: This revision petition is directed against the order dated - 08.10.2004 in IA No.256 of 2000 in OS No.152 of 1992 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy district, wherein, the said application filed by the petitioner-D.1 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 342 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex-parte decree dated 22.02.1999 was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-first defendant and the learned counsel for the first respondent. Perused the record. 3. The first respondent herein filed suit for declaration of title and for permanent injunction. The petitioner-first defendant herein filed written statement contesting the suit. Necessary issues were framed and the matter was coming up for trial. PW.1 was examined in chief on 30.10.1998 and the matter was posted to 18.11.1998 for cross- examination. There was no representation on behalf of the petitioner on that date and subsequent dates of adjournments on 25.11.1998, 4.12.1998 and 14.12.1998. As such on 14.12.1998 the petitioner-D.1 was set ex-parte and on 22.02.1999 the suit was decreed ex-parte. Subsequently, the petitioner herein filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte decree along with the present application, IA No.256 of 2000 seeking condonation of delay of 342 days. 4. According to the petitioner-first defendant, at the relevant time, she went to her native place and fell sick and lost contact with the counsel and it was only one year thereafter when returned to Hyderabad, she came to know about passing of the ex-parte decree. Learned counsel for the petitioner-first defendant would submit that the petitioner-D.1 is old lady, aged 74 years and she had no other effective male assistance and therefore, she could not contact the counsel during the relevant period and therefore, she was not aware of passing of the ex-parte decree. 5. The trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioner has not produced any medical evidence to show that she fell ill during relevant period. Be that as it may, having regard to the old age of the petitioner-D.1 and also the fact that the suit relates to declaration of title and injunction in respect of immoveable property and the petitioner-D.1 is contesting the same and disputing the Will, it is considered that an opportunity be given to the defendant to have the matter decided on merits. 6. In the circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and consequently, IA No.256 of 2000 is allowed and the delay of 342 days is condoned, subject to condition that the petitioner-D.1 shall pay costs of Rs.1,000/- to the first respondent/plaintiff, within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the impugned order dated 08.10.2004 dismissing the IA No.256 of 2000 stands confirmed. Having regard to the fact that the suit is of the year 1992, the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy district, is directed to make necessary endeavour to dispose of the same at an early date, preferably, within a period of six (6) months, from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 7. In the result, the civil revision petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 29.01.2011 bss