This civil revision petition is filed against the order dated 15.04.2011 passed by the VIII Additional District Judge, Nizamabad in I.A.No.746 of 2009 in O.S.No.39 of 2002.

2. I have heard Smt K.Sridevi, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Sri V.Manohar Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

3. The revision petitioner filed the suit before the learned trial Court for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 27.07.1995 relating to immoveable property. As he failed to adduce evidence when the matter had come up for trial, the trial Court dismissed the suit for default on 07.11.2006 and the petitioner filed an application before the trial Court under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 876 days in filing the petition to set aside the dismissal order dated 07.11.2006, whereby the suit was dismissed for default.

4. The petition was opposed by the defendant contending inter alia that the petitioner was not diligent in prosecuting the suit, there was willful negligence on his part, he was attending several places during the relevant period and he prosecuted some cases including habeas corpus petition filed seeking release of his brother.5. The learned trial Court conducted detailed enquiry during the course of which the petitioner examined two doctors, who allegedly treated him and issued certificates as PWs.1 and 2, examined himself as PW.3 and marked seven documents. The respondent did not adduce any oral evidence, but he marked 13 documents.

6. The learned trial Court upon hearing either side and considering the material placed before it dismissed the I.A.No.746 of 2009 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act by the revision petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, this present civil revision petition is filed.

7. The point for consideration in the present civil revision petition is:

Whether there are any reasonable grounds to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court in dismissing the I.A.No.746 of 2009?

8. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that merely because the delay is inordinate, it is no ground to reject the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay and if the applicant is able to properly explain the delay, even if it is inordinate, can be condoned.9. In support of his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner relied upon a decision of the learned single Judge of this Court in MADDINENI VENKATESWARLU AND ANOTHER v MADDINENI RAJAMMA @ RAJESWARI AND OTHERS 2011(5)ALD 721 wherein it is held that when the first petitioner, who is said to be a man of unsound mind and the second petitioner is said to be absent during the relevant period and thereby no mala fides can be attributed to the petitioners in prosecuting the case. When the rights of parties in an immovable property are involved, the delay in filing the petition under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex parte decree can be condoned. The learned counsel also relied upon a judgment of another learned Single Judge in V.LINGA REDDY AND OTHER v V.RAM REDDY AND OTHERS 2011(6)ALT 225 wherein the delay of 14 years in making the application to set aside the ex parte decree was condoned. In the said case the learned Single Judge held that mere inordinate delay is no ground to refuse the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay, when sufficient cause is made out for the delay and that the expression ‘sufficient cause’ has to be considered for the purpose of advancing substantial justice.

10. There is no dispute about the propositions laid down in the above said two judgments. But the facts of the present case are altogether different from that of the facts mentioned in the above referred judgments. The learned counsel further relied upon a decision reported in N.BALAKRISHNAN v M.KRISHNA MURTHY (1998)7 SCC 123 wherein the Supreme Court laid