IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.5344 OF 2011 Between : Boya Ratnakoothuru Pramanjaneyulu ... PETITIONER A N D Sangireddy Eswar Reddy and another. …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.5344 OF 2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’), is directed against the order, dated 16.04.2010, in I.A.No.64 of 2010 in M.V.O.P.No.30 of 2007, on the file of the Special Judge for Trial of Cases under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act-cum-VI Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurnool, whereunder and whereby, the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short, ‘the Act’) to condone the delay of 490 days in filing a petition under Order IX Rule 9 CPC, was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner met with an accident; that he was bed ridden for three months; that he was unable to sit and stand properly; that the petitioner does not know the date of posting of the O.P.; that thereafter, the petitioner was not present on the date when the case was posted; that the petition was dismissed for default and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 3. The petitioner filed the Original Petition seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident, which was dismissed for default on 31.03.2008. The word ‘sufficient cause’ is not defined under Section 5 of the Act. But, it must mean a cause which is beyond the control of the party invoking the aid of said provision. The word ‘sufficient cause’ should receive liberal interpretation so as to advance justice to the parties. But at the same time, if there is inaction or negligence attributable to the party seeking aid of the Section, no indulgence can be shown. 4. In this case, the petitioner is said to have bed ridden due to accident, and hence, he could not attend the Court on the day when the case was posted for trial. Therefore, the trial Court ought to have given one more opportunity to the petitioner so that he can adduce evidence. As sufficient cause is shown in the affidavit filed in support of the petition the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order, dated 16.04.2007 in I.A.No.64 of 2010 in M.V.O.P.No.30 of 2007 on the file of the Special Judge for Trial of Cases under Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (POA) Act-cum-VI Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurnool, and consequently I.A.No.I.A.No.64 of 2010 in M.V.O.P.No.30 of 2007 is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J DECEMBER 09, 2011. YVL