IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3562 OF 2009 Between: Palavala Padmaja .....PETITIONER AND Gudivada Satya Venkata Naga Bhaskar ....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3562 OF 2009 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 12.06.2009, in I.A.No.702 of 2009 in O.S.No.265 of 2008 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Eluru, whereunder and whereby, the petition, filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, (for short, “the Act”), to condone the delay of 153 days in filing the petition under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C., to set aside the ex parte decree, was dismissed on the ground that no proper explanation was given by the petitioner. 2. The suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff against the petitioner/defendant for recovery of money. On 24.09.2008, the suit was decreed ex parte. Thereafter, the present petition was filed by the petitioner to condone the delay of 153 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree. 3. Heard. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner engaged a non-practicing advocate to pursue the suit on behalf of her; that he did not file vakalat on behalf of the petitioner and as such she was set ex parte in the suit; that therefore, there was delay of 153 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 5. The word ‘sufficient cause’ is not defined under Section 5 of the Act, but it can be inferred that it must mean a cause, which is beyond the control of the party invoking the aid of the Section. Any cause, which prevents a person from approaching the Court within time, is sufficient. In doing so, it is the test of reasonable man in normal circumstances, which has to be applied. A cause for delay, which by due care and attention the party could have avoided, can be sufficient cause. 6. It is not a case where the petitioner is not having any knowledge of the suit. As a matter of fact, the petitioner received suit summons from the trial Court. Her contention is that after receipt of summons in suit, she engaged a non-practicing advocate and he did not file vakalat on her behalf. On what date the petitioner came to know about the passing of the ex parte decree against her and the name of the advocate to whom she gave vakalat, have not been stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition. There is absolutely no sufficient reason given by the petitioner for the delay of 153 days occurred in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree. In the absence of any sufficient cause, the trial Court rightly exercised its discretion in dismissing the petition, filed by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Act. The discretion exercised by the trial Court is not shown to be perverse. The impugned order needs no interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J November 11, 2010 MD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3562 OF 2009 November 11, 2010