This Civil Revision Petition is filed against Order, dated 28-02-2012, in IA.No.184 of 2011 in OS.No.99 of 2008, on the file of the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Yelamanchili.

The petitioner is the defendant in the aforesaid suit filed by the respondent for recovery of money on the foot of a promissory note. After entering appearance in pursuance of the suit summons, he failed to file written statement. On 02-01-2009, the case was adjourned on costs of Rs.100/-for not filing written statement by the petitioner. Subsequently, as the petitioner did not file the written statement, and he was called absent, he was set ex parte. After the suit was adjourned on five occasions from 02-01-2009, the same was decreed on 09-03-2009 for a sum of Rs.1,42,199/-with future interest. Thereafter, the petitioner filed IA.No.184 of 2011 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for condonation of delay of 681 days in filing an application to set aside the ex parte decree. The said application was dismissed by the lower Court by the Order under revision.

At the hearing, Mr. G.V.S. Kishore Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the suit pronote is a rank forgery and that the denial of the opportunity to the petitioner to contest the suit on merits, would cause serious failure of justice.

In his affidavit, filed in support of the application for condonation of delay, the petitioner inter alia averred as under:

“I am the deponent herein and defendant in the above suit. As such, I fully acquainted with the facts of the suit. The plaintiff filed the above suit against me for recovery of suit promissory amount. In fact, I do not know the plaintiff and I never executed any promissory note much less the suit promissory note. I never received any amount from the plaintiff, as I have no acquaintance with the plaintiff. After receipt of the suit notice, I engaged advocate & contested the suit. But subsequently, I feel sick and shifted from Sabavaram to Golugonda Mandal. On that I unable to meet my counsel to proceed further in the above suit. Recently, I contacted my counsel and came to know that the above suit was decreed on 09-03-2009 as exparte. I have good case in the above suit and every possibility to succeed in the above suit.”

As rightly observed by the lower Court, the petitioner, being a Government servant, would have availed sick leave, if he really fell sick. He has not adduced any evidence to substantiate his plea that he was sick. Moreover, the petitioner failed to specify atleast the approximate time, if not the precise date, on which he fell sick and for how long the sickness continued. He has also not indicated as to when he was shifted from Sabavaram to Golugonda Mandal and whether he has informed the said fact to his counsel.

The Limitation Act, 1963, prescribed limitation with a view to see that a litigant does not drag on the litigation. Section 5 gives an opportunity to a litigant to file applications beyond the prescribed period of limitation provided, he is able to establish that he was prevented by sufficient cause from approaching the Court within the said period. Even though explanation for day-to-day delay is not being insisted by the Courts, the litigant has to nevertheless furnish the satisfactory explanation for filing the application beyond the prescribed period of limitation. This responsibility on the part of the litigant is much more in cases of abnormal delays, for by such delays right came to be vested in his adversary and such a right cannot be easily taken away by making unduly liberal approach by the Court (See Government of Andhra Pradesh vs. Murali Madhava Rao (2009(3) ALT 637 = 2009 (3) ALD 355).

In the instant case, the explanation offered by the petitioner for condonation of inordinate delay of 681 days is bereft of material particulars regarding the petitioner’s sickness and his shifting to Golugonda Mandal from Sabavaram let alone substantiating the said allegations by