The respondent herein (hereafter called, the plaintiff) filed the suit being O.S.No.325 of 2000 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad. The suit against the petitioner herein (hereafter called, the defendant) is for specific performance of agreement of sale, dated 25.03.1982 under which the defendant agreed to sell land admeasuring 2,061 square yards to the plaintiff. After receiving the suit summons, the defendant appeared before the Court through her son as ‘she is an old lady unable to appear before the Court’. The matter was adjourned for written statement from time to time till November, 2001. As the case was not prosecuted properly by the defendant or her son, the trial Court passed an ex parte decree on 16.11.2001. Plaintiff’s counsel issued a notice in newspapers on 31.05.2003 for the information of the general public about the decree passed by the civil Court. On 30.06.2003, the defendant filed interlocutory application under Order IX Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking to set aside the ex parte decree, dated 16.11.2001. As there was a delay, she also filed I.A.No.2118 of 2003 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 praying the lower Court to condone the delay of 572 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree. The same was dismissed by the trial Court on 15.02.2006. The petitioner, therefore, filed initially a revision petition under Section 115 of CPC. Later, by reason of the orders passed by this Court in C.R.P.M.P.No.5706 of 2006, the same is converted as one under Article 227 of Constitution of India.

2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner/defendant strenuously contends that the lower Court committed error in rejecting the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. He contends that the defendant properly explained the delay and the lower Court failed to see that such delay was not caused due to negligence on the part of the defendant. He would nextly contends that the defendant also filed I.A.No.2119 of 2003 seeking leave of the trial Court to file writen statement, that when the said I.A. was rejected, the defendant filed C.R.P.No.54205 of 2003, which was allowed by this Court, by reason of which, the written statement filed by the defendant is very much part of the record. Therefore, he would urge that the observations made by the trial Court in this regard are ex facie not warranted. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/ plaintiff submits that the defendant made bald and vague allegations in the affidavit accompanying I.A.No.2118 of 2003, that she did not produce any evidence nor explained sufficient cause for such huge delay in filing application to set aside ex parte decree. He also points out that in the affidavit accompanying I.A.No.2118 of 2003, para 3 contained blanks, which would lead to an inference that these blanks were filled up later to bring in tune with the evidence. He further urges that the plaintiff obtained decree in 2001 and filed E.P.No.698 of 2005, which is pending. If the ex parte decree is set aside now, the members of the plaintiff society would suffer injustice.

3. The background of the case and the rival submissions would throw up only question for consideration as to whether in exercise of powers under Article 227 of Constitution of India, this Court can condone the delay of 572 days in filing an application under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC seeking to set aside ex parte decree, dated 16.11.2001.

4. The method and manner of exercising powers in condoning delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act by the Court of original/primary jurisdiction as well as superior Courts is now well settled. An elaborate reference to all the case laws may not be necessary. Suffice it to refer to the Judgment of the Supreme Court in N.BALAKRISHNAN V M.KRISHNA MURTHY(1), and the decision of Division Bench of this Court in STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH V SAYANNA(2).

5. In Ba