IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3066 OF 2010 BETWEEN: Yarramalla Papa Rao. …PETITIONER AND Madhyahnapu Satyavathi …RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3066 OF 2010 O R D E R: The revision is filed against the order of the Junior Civil Judge, Jangareddigudem in I.A.No.848 of 2009 in O.S.No. 877 of 2005. The application was filed to condone the delay of 315 days in filing the application to set aside the exparte decree. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff. 2. The suit was filed for setting aside the registered settlement deed dated 14.05.1985. Evidently, the suit was filed 20 years after the execution of the settlement deed in favour of the defendant. It appears simultaneously, the defendant in the suit also filed another suit O.S.No.266 of 2009 originally numbered as O.S.No.759 of 2004 for permanent injunction with regard to the same property. It appears that as the Advocate has not informed according to the claim of the defendant, the written statement could not be filed and the defendant was set exparte on 20.04.2006 and subsequently, the exparte decree was passed on 23.09.200, the present application was filed on 04.08.2009 on the ground that though she was set exparte on 20.04.2006 she was not informed of it and she came to know only through a letter said to have been written by her Advocate in August, 2009. The lower Court after considering the rival contentions, allowed the application. 3. The contention of the revision petitioner is that there are no bona fides in filing of this application. The applicant has not come to the Court with clean hands and the reasons claimed for condonation of the delay are inconsistent in view of the fact that a few days prior to the filing of this application a police complaint was given in July, 2009, wherein she stated that she was aware of the exparte decree, whereas in the present application, she claims that she came to know about the exparte decree on a letter written by her Advocate and therefore, it shows that the conduct of the petitioner is not bona fide and clean. He also relied on a decision reported in Balwanth Singh (dead) Vs. Jagdish Singh and other[1], where-under the supreme Court has considered the conditions when delay can be condoned with regard to the set aside the abatement and bringing of the legal representatives in a particular case. In this case evidently the defendant is an illiterate woman. The property is said to have been conveyed about 20 yeas back prior to the filing of the suit and her rights in the immovable property are sought to be challenged. The law is now well settled that minute explanation of delay need not be insisted in case of illiterate people and also in cases where valuable rights in the property are involved. The inconsistency between July, 2009 and August, 2009 will not make it so wide to defeat the claim of the petitioner about the reasons given by her. The conduct of the defendant cannot be said to be blemishable since she has filed another suit for injunction and prosecuting the same and did not allow to be dismissed for default. If really the laches are to be attributed to the defendant, then she would not also have shown interest in the injunction suit. Therefore, the explanation given by the defendant appears to be reasonable. In fact, there is no advantage gained by the defendant by suffering an exparte decree when her suit for permanent injunction pending. Therefore, evidently the advantage, which is sought to be conveyed, is only for the plaintiff. In opposing the application for condonation of the delay the lower Court has given sufficient reasons and keeping in view the interest of the parties and also rights involved and also the illiteracy of the defendant, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower Court, more so when the exparte decree is also said to have been set aside in consequent of this order. 4. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J Date: 06-04-2011. INL [1] 2010(5) ALD 1997 (SC)