THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2904 OF 2011 ORDER: This Revision is preferred against the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum – V Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Anantapur, in I.A.No.469 of 2010 in O.S.No.15 of 2009 dated 07.12.2010. By the said order, the Court below dismissed the I.A. filed to condone the delay of 112 days in filing a petition to set aside the ex parte decree passed against the petitioner on 25.11.2009. The Court below has observed that though summons were served on the petitioner, vakalat was filed on his behalf on 20.04.2009; he took time upto 28.07.2009 for filing written statement; as he did not choose to file written statement, he was set ex parte on 27.09.2009; and thereafter, the ex parte decree was passed on 25.11.2009. The learned Judge also took note of the averments in the counter that the petitioner was carrying on Gold business; he had been continuously sitting and transacting business and, in the absence of an explanation for each day’s delay in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree, the said application was devoid of merits and necessitated dismissal. The learned Judge also held that the petitioner’s complaint of having fallen down in the bathroom; that he was completely bed ridden due to back pain; and that he was taking treatment in his house; could not be believed, and these statements did not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of the delay of 112 days. The Suit was filed for recovery of money, and for enforcement of a mortgage. The Suit is of the year 2009. The petitioner herein is the defendant in the Suit. It is evident from the order of the Court below that the petitioner had entered appearance on 20.04.2009 through his counsel and, since he did not file his written statement by 28.07.2009 (within three months of having entered appearance), he was set ex parte on 27.09.2009. It is no doubt true that the delay in filling an application to set aside an ex parte decree must be properly explained. The delay of 112 days in the present case is not so inordinate as to justify the petitioner being denied his right to contest the Suit on merits. I consider it appropriate, therefore, to set aside the order of the Court below; condone the delay of 112 days in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree; and set aside the ex parte decree on condition that the petitioner deposits Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) before the Court below within two weeks from today. On such deposit, the respondent shall be permitted to withdraw the said amount without having to furnish any security. It is also made clear that, in case the petitioner does not file his written statement by the next date of hearing as intimated by the Court, it is open to the Court below to pass such orders as it considers appropriate, thereafter, in accordance with law. With the above observations, the Revision Petition stands disposed of. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J August 19, 2011 Note: Issue C.C. in one week. B/O.MD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2904 OF 2011 August 19, 2011 MD