HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH C.R.P.Nos.4714 and 4715 of 2009 Dt.22.1.2010 C.R.P.No.4714 of 2009: Between: N.Chengamma (died) and another .. Petitioners And Vuggu Papulamma (died) and another .. Respondents C.R.P.No.4715 of 2009: N.Chengamma (died) and another .. Petitioners And Vuggu Papulamma (died) and another .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH C.R.P.Nos.4714 and 4715 of 2009 ORDER: Both the civil revision petitions arise out of the same suit proceedings among the same parties in O.S.No.927 of 1997 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati. Petitioner in both the civil revision petitions is plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for declaration of title and for delivery of possession. The suit was decreed against the first respondent Vuggu Papulamma on 30.6.1999 ex parte for non-filing of written statement. Thereafter, the defendant filed two applications in I.A.Nos.358 of 2003 under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay of 181 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree and I.A.No.359 of 2003 under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C to set aside the ex parte decree passed on 30.6.1999 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati. Both the said I.As were allowed by order 5.8.2009. Against which, these two civil revision petitions are filed by the plaintiff. C.R.P.No.4715 of 2009 is filed against the order in I.A.No.358 of 2003 for condoning the delay of 181 days in filling the petition to set aside the ex parte decree, whereas C.R.P.No.4714 of 2009 is filed against the order in I.A.No.359 of 2003 in allowing the application to set aside the ex parte decree dated 30.6.1999. Heard both the learned counsel. During the pendency of the said I.As., the defendant died and her legal representative, 2nd respondent herein was brought on record. Similarly, the plaintiff died and her legal representative, 2nd petitioner herein was brought on record. It is not in dispute that the suit was decreed ex parte on 30.6.1999. Prior to decreeing the suit summons were served on the defendant and the defendant entered appearance and the learned counsel also filed vakalat and for non-filing of written statement of the defendant ex parte decree was passed on 30.6.1999. Thereafter, applications in I.A.No.358 of 2003 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 181 days in filing the petition and I.A.No.359 of 2003 under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C to set aside the ex parte decree dated 30.6.1999 were filed on 27.1.2001. In support of the application filed to condone the delay, it was stated that the defendant is aged about 88 years and residing at Tiruchanoor and due to severe knee pains she could not move from bed and after giving vakalat in the aforesaid case she did not meet her counsel to find out the stage of the case and she has not received any communication from her counsel, she was under bona fide impression that she would be informed in case of any requirement of her presence before the Court and as such she was unaware of the ex parte decree till the notice in execution petition was served in E.P.No.356 of 2000 for delivery of possession of the suit schedule property pursuant to the ex parte decree. It is stated that the non-filing of written statement is neither wilful nor wanton, but only due to non- awareness. The perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the application to condone the delay shows that absolutely no sufficient cause has been shown to condone the delay from 30.6.1999 to 27.1.2001 i.e., for a period of 1½ year. Thus, the delay is not 181 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree, but the delay is about 546 days. It is curious to note that the court below also numbered the application filed only to set aside the ex parte decree and both the applications have been considered and allowed. In so far as the application to condone the delay is concerned, absolutely no reasons have been mentioned showing sufficient cause explaining the inordinate delay of 546 days. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the court below ought not to have allowed the application filed to condone the delay of 181 days, in fact the delay is about 546 days. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the order in I.A.No.358 of 2003 filed to condone the delay of 181 days in filing the petition is set aside. As the delay application itself is dismissed, the question of setting aside the ex parte decree in I.A.No.359 of 2003 does not arise and the same is accordingly dismissed. Both the civil revision petitions are accordingly allowed. No costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. 22.1.2010 kpr