IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN :PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1762 OF 2009 Between: Y. Bal Reddy ..... PETITIONER AND Gujjari Balnarayana ..... RESPONDENT ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 20-11-2008 passed in I.A.No.365 of 2007 in O.S.No.53 of 2004 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool, whereby and whereunder the Junior Civil Judge allowed the application filed by the plaintiff under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and condoned delay of 149 days in filing the petition under Order IX Rule IX of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The petitioner is the defendant and respondent is the plaintiff in O.S.No.53 of 2004. The plaintiff filed suit for recovery of Rs.94,000/- basing on a pro-note dated 04-06-2001 executed by the defendant. When the case stood posted for evidence on behalf of the plaintiff on 08-03-2007, neither the plaintiff nor his counsel appeared and consequently suit filed by him came to be dismissed for default. Thereafter the plaintiff filed an application under Order IX Rule IX of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the default order and restore the suit to file. As there was a delay of 149 days in filing the petition under Order IX Rule IX of the Code of Civil Procedure, he moved I.A.No.365 of 2007 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.365 of 2007 that the counsel engaged by him did not keep him informed the date of his evidence and subsequently he changed his counsel and filed petition to set aside the default order along with delay condonation petition. 3. The defendant resisted the application by filing counter. 4. The learned Junior Civil Judge, on considering the material brought on record, proceeded to condone the delay of 149 days in filing the petition under Order IX Rule IX of the Code of Civil Procedure by order dated 20-11-2008. The said order is assailed in this revision by the defendant. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/ defendant and learned counsel appearing for the respondent/ plaintiff. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant submits that the respondent/plaintiff has not offered sufficient reasons for condoning the delay of 149 days in filing the petition under Order IX Rule IX of the Code of Civil Procedure and therefore, the trial Court is not justified in condoning the delay. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff supported the order impugned in the revision. 8. The guiding principle in considering the delay condonation petition is that justice should not be sacrificed on the alter of technicalities but at the same time the Court should not loose site of the statutory requirements of existence of sufficient cause and condone the delay on equitable grounds. The pragmatic liberal approach should be made in considering the petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. In N. BALAKRISHNA v. M. KRISHNA MURTHY[1] the Supreme Court observed that it is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the Court. Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limits. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is only criterion. 9. The respondent/plaintiff stated in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation petition that counsel engaged by him did not inform him the date of trial and subsequently he came to know of the dismissal of the suit and changed the counsel and filed the petition under Order IX Rule IX of the Code of Civil Procedure along with delay condition petition. 10. The trial Court exercised the discretion reasonably. I do not see any illegality or irregularity warranting interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 11. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed. _____________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J January 24, 2011. PN THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1762 OF 2009 January 24, 2011 [1] 1998 (7) SCC 123