THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.R.P.No.4593 of 2011 ORDER: 1 This revision is directed against the order, dated 10.06.2011 made in I.A.No.653 of 2010 in O.S.No.797 of 2006 by the learned IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad whereby the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 720 days for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 07.07.2008 in O.S.No.797 of 2006 was dismissed. 2 The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner during the course of his employment went to Gurgoan, Haryana State and during his absence the substituted service was made by way of a paper publication and consequently the respondent obtained an ex parte decree and during the course of E.P proceedings when the bailiff came to the Hyderabad address of the petitioner he came to know about the filing of the suit by the respondent against the petitioner for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,25,000/-, in spite of there being a negotiated settlement. Hence the petitioner filed the impugned application before the court below pleading that he has a fair chance to succeed in the suit and so an opportunity may be given to him to contest the suit, by condoning the delay of 720 days in tendering appearance. However, the court below rejected the said application. Hence the present revision. 3 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4 As could be seen from the order impugned in this revision, it is clear that after the institution of the suit by the respondent, summons were sent to the petitioner in the said suit for his appearance twice. But the said summons were returned unclaimed on both the occasions. Hence it is deemed service. In spite of the same, the court below further ordered substitute service on the petitioner. Even then also there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner. It is to be noticed further that the bailiff went to the house of the revision petitioner at Hyderabad on 17.6.2009 i.e. more than one year before the filing of the present application. Hence the petitioner has not established his bonafides in filing the impugned application. On factual aspects also as observed by the Court below the petitioner has not placed on record any evidence in support of his plea that he has paid the balance amount to the respondent. Therefore, the petitioner has not shown any sufficient cause for condoning the inordinate delay of 720 days in filing the impugned application. 5 Further, the power of the court while entertaining an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is discretionary. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, the Court below, in my opinion, has not committed any irregularity or illegality in exercising the said discretionary power in dismissing the impugned application. 6 For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any reasons in this revision and accordingly this revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ------------------------------ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date: 23.12.2011 Kvsn