THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1039 of 2011 ORDER: Respondent No.1 filed O.S.No.85 of 2004 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, against the petitioners for recovery of amount on the strength of a promissory note. An ex-parte decree was passed in the suit on 30-08-2004. At a later point of time, the petitioners came to know about the ex-parte decree. They filed I.A.No.44 of 2006 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 403 days in filing an application to set aside the ex-parte order. The petitioners pleaded that they have migrated to Bhimavaram for livelihood and they did not receive summons in the suit at all. Respondent No.1, however, resisted the application by filing counter. According to him, when he found that summons were not served upon the petitioners, substituted service through publication was effected. It is also stated that the delay is not properly explained. The trial court, dismissed the application through order, dated 20-12-2010. Hence, this revision. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. The record discloses that summons in the suit were not served upon the petitioners. It may be true that the substituted service was effected. However, the petitioners were residing at Bhimavaram at the relevant point of time. Even if paper publication was said to have been made they cannot be expected to know about the state of affairs at their native place. Further, the delay, not that abnormal. The trial court ought to have given opportunity for the petitioners to contest the suit. Hence, this revision is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.44 of 2006 filed for condonation of delay shall stand allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 05-12-2011 Prv