This Revision is filed challenging the order dt.05.08.2013 in IA.No.826 of 2011 in OS.No.131 of 2006 of the Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir.

2. The petitioners herein are defendants in the above suit. The suit was filed for specific performance of an agreement of sale dt.09.10.2005 allegedly executed by defendant Nos.1 to 3 in favor of the respondent/plaintiff. The defendants filed a written statement but remained ex parte and did not lead evidence. The suit was decreed ex parte on 02.03.2010.

3. IA.No.826 of 2011 was filed by the defendants under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay of 502 days in filing an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex parte decree dt.02.03.2010. They also filed another IA under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the said decree.

4. In the affidavit filed in support of IA.No.826 of 2011, the defendants contended that they had engaged a counsel by name V. Srinivas of Bhongir on their behalf and instructed him to conduct the case on their behalf; that written statement was also filed in 2007; that 2nd defendant was looking after the proceedings in the suit on behalf of other defendants by contacting their counsel; that their counsel informed the defendants that he would look after the case and inform them as and when their presence was required; suddenly on 29.07.2011, notices were received in EP.No.21 of 2011 by them asking them to attend the court on 19.08.2011 along with copy of the EP which indicated that a decree was passed on 02.03.2010 against them; that the counsel avoided to contact them; later they verified through another counsel and came to know that they had been set ex parte on 17.02.2010 as the counsel did not represent the matter and an ex parte decree was passed. They contended that on account of their earlier counsel not informing them about the proceedings in the suit, the ex parte decree came to be passed and the same be set aside after condoning the delay in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree.filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree.

5. Counter-affidavit was filed by the plaintiff/respondent opposing the above application contending that the allegations made by the defendants cannot be believed; that the plaintiff had filed his affidavit in lieu of chief-examination on 15.09.2009 and the suit was decreed only on 02.03.2010; that defendants did not explain why they did not approach their counsel during this period; by blaming their counsel, the defendants cannot get away with the inordinately long delay of 502 days in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree. The plaintiff therefore prayed that IA.No.836 of 2011 filed by the defendants be dismissed.

6. By order dt.05.08.2013, the court below allowed IA.No.826 of 2013. It held that although the defendants had filed a written statement and contested the matter, their counsel did not represent the case on 17.02.2010; therefore, they were set ex parte on that day; that the counsel for defendants also did not cross-examine the plaintiff and ex parte decree was passed on 02.03.2010; that valuable rights of the defendants were involved in the matter and they cannot be condemned unheard, although their counsel did not defend them. It therefore, held that defendants should be given an opportunity to contest the matter and the delay of 502 days can be condoned on payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- to plaintiff.

7. Challenging the same, this Revision is filed by the plaintiff.

8. Heard Sri P. Venugopal, counsel for Ch.Siddharth Sharma, counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff and Sri K. Goverdhan Reddy, counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 10.

9. The counsel for petitioner contended that the defendants were negligent in contesting the suit after having filed the written statement; that they did not explain day-to-day delay; that the court below, without stating that it is satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown by the defendants in explaining the delay in