THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5700 of 2009 ORAL ORDER: Heard both sides. 2. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 04.11.2009, passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada, allowing the application I.A.No.1921 of 2007 in O.S.No.86 of 2000, filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking to condone the delay of 193 days in filing an application under Order-9 Rule-9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for setting aside the default order, dated 19.09.2006, passed in O.S.No.86 of 2000. 3. The petitioner is the defendant and the respondents are the plaintiffs in the said suit. 4. For the sake of convenience, in this order, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the suit. 5. The grievance of the defendant is that the Court below was in error in allowing the application filed by the plaintiffs, seeking condonation of delay in filing an application, seeking to set aside the default order, passed against them. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the defendant submits that the said suit was tried along with O.S.No.45 of 1998, which was filed by the revision petitioner herein, and that O.S.No.45 of 1998 was decreed; that E.P. was filed and warrants were also issued in it and at that stage, the present application came to be filed by the plaintiffs to prevent the defendant from enjoying the fruits of the decree in O.S.No.45 of 1998 and hence there is absolutely no justification in allowing the said application, by the Court below. 7. No doubt, the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the defendant appears to be attractive, but here is a case where the trial Court exercised its discretionary jurisdiction in passing the impugned order. In cases, where the trial Court exercises its discretionary jurisdiction in the applications, filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, this Court shall not, ordinarily, interfere, unless and until a palpable irregularity is demonstrated. 8. Obviously, this is a case where the trial Court, having regard to the facts and circumstances, allowed the application, exercising its discretionary jurisdiction. Therefore, I do not propose to interfere with the discretionary order passed by the trial Court. 9. It is needless to say that the Court below shall dispose of the matter with utmost expedition, since the suit is of the year 2000, on priority basis, and if no co-operation is extended by the plaintiffs in this regard, it can pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. 10. Subject to the above observations and directions, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, at the stage of admission. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 12th March 2010 dr