IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5135 OF 2008 Between: Chappidi Sudhakarar Rao ..... PETITIONER AND Gangineni Venkateswarlu ....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5135 OF 2008 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is directed against the order, dated 03.04.2008, in E.A.No.450 of 2007 in E.P.No.179 of 2006 in O.S.No.1147 of 1998, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nellore, whereunder and whereby, the petition filed to condone the delay of 539 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte order in the suit, is dismissed, on the ground that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, (for short, “the Act”) is not applicable to the Execution Proceedings. 2. In spite of service of notice, none appears for the respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of this Court in State Bank of India, Saifabad Branch, Hyderabad vs. Muffar Ali Khan[1], wherein it is held thus: “So far as the State of A.P. is concerned, Rule 106 of Order 21 CPC was amended through a notification published in gazette, dated 30.11.1992. Sub-rule (4) was added to Rule 106 CPC, which read as under: “Provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, shall apply to all applications under sub-Rule (3).”” In view of the amendment, the Act would apply even to Execution Proceedings also. Therefore, the question to be considered in this petition is whether ‘sufficient cause’ is shown to condone the delay or not. 4. The word ‘sufficient cause’ is not defined under Section 5 of the Act, but it must mean a cause which is beyond the control of the party invoking the aid of said provision. Any cause, which prevents a person from approaching the Court, is a sufficient cause. 5. It is a case where the petitioner received summons, but he misplaced the summons and could not represent the matter in the executing Court. The reason given by the petitioner in this case is that he has taken his aged parents to the hospital due to their ill health, and because of that he could not engage an advocate to represent the proceedings before the execution Court. Therefore, sufficient cause is shown to condone the delay. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned order and condoning the delay. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J February 25, 2010 MD/YVL [1] 2004 ALD (5) 92