THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5228 of 2011 December 15, 2011 Between: Nalla Jogamma, W/o.Late Sri Narayudu ... Petitioner And Gunnam Suribabu, S/o.Sri Subba Rao And others ...Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5228 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner is the second defendant. The first respondent filed the suit being O.S.No.90 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 from interfering with the suit schedule land. The said suit was dismissed for default on 19.10.2010. The first respondent then filed an application being I.A. No.1009 of 2009 under Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to set aside the order dismissing the suit for default. As there was delay of 45 days in filing the said I.A., he filed another application being I.A.No.91 of 2011 in I.A.No.1009 of 2009 to condone the delay. In his affidavit accompanying I.A.No.91 of 2011 the first respondent pleaded that on 03.11.2010 he could not attend the Court as he was bedridden because of viral fever. He also filed medical certificate to that effect. Considering the same, by impugned order dated 17.8.2011, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram condoned the delay, aggrieved by which the present civil revision petition is filed. It is well settled that the phrase “sufficient cause” should receive liberal construction to prevent substantial injustice. It is also well settled that when the lower Court considering the sufficient cause condones the delay ordinarily the appellate/revisional Court should not interfere with such order (N.Balakrishnan v M.Krishnamurthy [1]). After perusing the affidavit filed by the first respondent in support of his interlocutory application and the order passed by the Court below, this Court is convinced that the trial Court exercised sound discretion and applied the relevant case law in condoning the delay. The civil revision petition is misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. ________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) December 15, 2011 YS [1] (1998) 7 SCC 123 : AIR 1998 SC 3222