THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1235 OF 2011 Dated:10.10.2011 Between: Gantla Jagannadha Reddy and others .. Petitioners And Banoth Lakpathi and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1235 OF 2011 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The petitioners herein are the defendants in the suit in O.S.No.252 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Thorrur. The suit of the respondents/plaintiffs for recovery of possession and mesne profits is decreed ex parte 18.02.2010. The petitioners have filed I.A.No.194 of 2010 to set aside the said ex parte decree along with an application to condone the delay of 19 days in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree. By impugned order, dated 21.02.2011, the said application was dismissed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Thorrur. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition. In this revision, it is submitted by Sri A.Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that in spite of showing valid and sufficient reasons to condone the delay, the application is rejected by the Court below without assigning any valid reasons. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Court below. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties, perused the affidavit filed in support of the application and also the order passed by the Court below. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it is the specific case of the petitioners that their family was shifted from their native Village i.e., Sithanagaram for the purpose of livelihood and as such they failed to contact their counsel, which resulted in ex parte decree. It is no doubt true that the suit was originally filed in the year 1997 and the petitioners have entered appearance and also filed written statement opposing the claim. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, it is stated that as they shifted from Sithanagaram Village, they could not contact their counsel, which resulted in ex parte decree. In that view of the matter, there is no reason for not accepting such a reason, particularly when the delay is only 19 days. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and also the nature of relief sought for in the suit, which is a substantive nature, I deem it appropriate that it is a fit case to condone the delay. For the aforesaid reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 21.02.2011 passed in I.A.No.194 of 2011 in O.S.No.252 of 2008 is set aside and consequently the said I.A. is allowed and the delay of 19 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree is condoned. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 10.10.2011 KH