THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.R.P.No. 3448 of 2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition has been directed against the order, dated 06-06-2011 in I.A.No.327 of 2008 in O.S.No.1 of 2008 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni, whereby and whereunder the petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking condonation of delay of 172 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree dated 16-03-2008 was dismissed. 2. The 1st respondent is the plaintiff, the petitioner and the 2nd respondent are the defendants 1 and 2, respectively, in O.S.No.1 of 2008. 3. For the sake of convenience, parties are herein after referred to as they were arrayed in the suit. 4. Brief facts are that the plaintiff filed a suit O.S.No.1 of 2008 against the defendants for recovery of compensation amounts. The said suit was decreed on the ground that the defendants remained ex parte. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants filed I.A.No.327 of 2008 in O.S.No.1 of 2008 to condone the delay of 172 days in filing the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex parte decree dated 16-03-2008 in O.S.No.1 of 2008 and the said petition was dismissed on the ground that the defendants were not diligent in prosecuting the case. Challenging the said order, the 1st defendant filed the present Civil Revision Petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondents though the notices were served. 6. The word ‘sufficient cause’ has not been defined under Section 5 of the Act, but it must mean beyond the control of the party invoking the aid of said provision. The word ‘sufficient cause’ should receive liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice to the parties, when there is no negligence nor inaction nor lack of bona fides are attributable to the party. 7. The reason given by the petitioner herein is that the post of Secretary in the Agricultural Marketing Committee was kept vacant. As there was no regular Secretary, summons in the suit was served on the attender and having no knowledge about case, the petitioner could not approach the Government Pleader for filing Vakalat and that the Supervisor, who was kept in full additional charge, was under suspension from 05-06-2008 and that the present Secretary assumed the office on 16-07-2008 and therefore, the delay is non-intentional or wanton. 8. Considering the allegations in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it is clear that no negligence or inaction can be attributable to the petitioner as the petitioner assumed charge of Secretary on 16-07-2008. He filed present application on 29-10-2008, after coming to know about the passing of ex parte decree. 9. It is stated that the summons of the suit have been served on the attender, and the same was not brought to the notice of the concerned officials. As the petitioner has given sufficient explanation for not filing an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex parte order, the delay can be condoned. Hence, the delay is condoned, 10. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, the impugned order passed in I.A.No.327 of 2008 in O.S.No.1 of 2008 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni, is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ 21st October 2011 kvr