( 1 ) THIS revision is filed challenging the order and decree dated 8-11-2001 passed by the court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, hyderabad West and South, Rangareddy district in I. A. No. 2087/2000 in O. S. No. 491/1999. By the impugned order, the court below allowed the application filed by the defendant under Section 5 of the Indian limitation Act and condoned the delay of 260 days in presenting the petition under order 9 Rule 13 C. P. C. to set aside the ex parte decree dated 23-12-1999 passed in o. S. No. 491/1999. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs in the suit filed this revision petition.

( 2 ) FOR the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as plaintiffs and defendant.

( 3 ) THE brief facts are that the plaintiffs filed the suit and obtained ex parte decree. Subsequently by order dated 25-2-2000 the court below also gave police protection on an application made by the plaintiffs. Coming to know about the institution of the suit and also the police protection given to the plaintiffs, the defendant averred in the present I. A. that he was not residing at kothwalguda village and shifted to balanagar, due to health problems; that during middle of July 1999 he had not received any summons addressed to him at kothwalguda village, nor he has refused any summons; that he was a regular subscriber of Eenadu newspaper; that therefore he had no knowledge of the publication of the notice in Andhra Prabha; and that he was not aware of the ex parte decree or order of police protection passed in favour of the plaintiff till the police came to the suit site on 27-6-2000 and asked his nephew to vacate the suit site.

( 4 ) THEREFORE, according to the defendant he came to know about the ex parte order and police protection only on 27-6-2000 and from that date within the statutory limitation, he filed the present petition under Order 9 Rule 13 C. P. C. for setting aside the ex parte decree. When the office took an objection, as an abundant caution he filed a petition under Section 5 of the limitation Act.

( 5 ) THE court below upon hearing the I. A. filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and considering the material available on record allowed the same after imposing costs of Rs. 250. 00. Aggrieved by the same the plaintiffs in the suit filed the present revision.

( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the plaintiffs strongly contended that the delay ought not have been condoned as a matter of routine. He relied on a judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court (Justice p. S. Narayana) in Lala Radhashyam Jaiswal, hereditary Trustee of Lala Temple v. M/s. Tiger rolling Shutters wherein it was held that mere filing of an affidavit is no evidence and the sufficieat cause must be proved by adducing necessary evidence. For this proposition the learned single Judge relied on a judgment of the Apex Court in Sudadevi v. Narayana arid held at paragraph No. 11 as under: apart from it, mere filing an affidavit is no evidence. In Sudadevi v. Narayana (AIR 1988 SC 1381) the Apex Court held that affidavits are not included in the definition of evidence in Section 3 of the Evidence Act and can be used as evidence only if for sufficient reason the Court passes an order under order 19 Rules 1 and 2 of C. P. C. Further, the service by affixture and substituted service are all acts done by the officers of the Court and there is a presumption that the official acts are done properly. It is no doubt true that in such cases it is always desirable to examine the Process Server or the bailiff so that there can be opportunity for the purpose of cross-examination. The learned Judge also gave emphasis to the language incorporated under Order 9 rule 13 C. P. C. According to the learned single Judge, the words "that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing", are notable. Hence it was observed that the explanation relating to existence or non- existence of sufficient cause is a