THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.851 OF 2011 ORDER: Despite service of notice on the Counsel for the respondents in the Court below, neither are the respondents present in Court nor are they represented by Counsel. I.A. No.233 of 2010 in O.S. No.59 of 2007 is filed to condone the delay of 188 days in filing the petition under Or. IX Rule 13 C.P.C. to set aside the ex parte decree in O.S. No.59 of 2007 dated 17.09.2007. The delay in filing the petition is of 188 days. The Court below held that the petitioner did not place any material to show that the first petitioner was in hospital seeking treatment for asthma and chest pain; it was the duty of the petitioner to explain each day’s delay, and failure on their part to approach the counsel was not a valid ground for condonation of delay. The Court below further held that, even on the date of filing of the petition to set aside the ex parte decree, the petitioners did not choose to submit their ailment certificate, and their version could not be believed. It is no doubt true that this Court while exercising its revisional jurisdiction would not, ordinarily, interfere with the discretion exercised by the Court below. The fact, however, remains that the suit schedule land exceeds 30 acres, and also includes a house in Ananthapur District. The delay of 188 days is not so inordinate as not to justify condonation of delay even on terms. I consider it appropriate, therefore, to condone the delay of 188 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree on condition that the petitioner herein pays the plaintiff a sum of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) within three weeks from today. On proof of payment of costs being filed, the Court below shall consider the application filed to set aside the ex parte decree on its merits, and pass orders in accordance with law. The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly. Date: 04.11.2011 ____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J MRKR