ORDER :

The plaintiff before the learned trial Court filed this revision under Section 115 C.P.C. questioning the correctness of order dated 04.11.2019 of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nuzvid in I.A.No.516 of 2018 in O.S.No.188 of 2008. The respondent herein is the defendant in the suit.

2. By the impugned order, the learned trial Court condoned 465 days delay and permitted the respondent herein to file application to set aside the ex-parte decree. It is that order which is under challenge now. The dispute between the parties is concerning Ac.0.35 cents of dry land situated in Veleru Village of Krishna District. This revision petitioner filed O.S.No.188 of 2008 seeking permanent injunction against the defendant therein from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property. By judgment dated 14.09.2016, the learned trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. It is thereafter the defendant therein thought of moving an application to set aside that decree and judgment stating that it was an ex-parte decree and for doing so she found that there was delay of 465 days and therefore, she sought for condonation of that delay in terms of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and filed I.A.No.516 of 2018. The respondent in that petition, who is the plaintiff in the suit, who is the revision petitioner herein, filed a counter and resisted the application. After due enquiry, the learned trial Court by the impugned order dated 04.11.2019 allowed that application and condoned the delay with a direction to the defendant/respondent herein to pay Rs.2,000/- as costs. During the course of the present hearing of this revision, it is stated that the revision petitioner did not receive the costs and preferred this revision and the costs were deposited into the trial Court by the respondent herein.

3. Learned counsel on both sides submitted arguments.

4. The point for determination is:

“Whether the impugned order is illegal or is materially irregular and the discretion was not judiciously exercised by the learned trial Court in considering the sufficiency of cause to condone delay of 465 days?

5. Point:

A perusal of the impugned order indicates that the learned trial Court referred to the facts and contentions raised by both sides and at para No.6 it is stated that even though the defendant/petitioner before the trial Court failed to explain appropriate reason for delay of 465 days, the trial Court considered the fact that the petitioner therein is a poor lady and with a view to give fair opportunity and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, it inclined to allow that application so that it could here the ex-parte decree set aside application. Thus, it is fact on record that the learned trial Court was not at all satisfied with the reasons assigned by the present respondent herein in seeking condonation of delay. However, on equitable grounds such as the poverty of the lady, the trial Court condoned the delay. In the present revision that approach of the trial Court is challenged as incorrect. There is merit in that contention of the revision petitioner. One should notice what the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India stated in Lingeswaran Vs. Thirunagalingam, 2022 Livelaw (SC) 227. That was also a case of condonation of delay and the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down that when once the enquiring Court records a finding that there was no proper explanation satisfactorily shown to the Court for condonation of delay, the matter should rest there and the condonation application was required to be dismissed. Trial Courts could not go further and condone the delay even when there are no merits in the application and condonation of delay even in such cases leads to giving a premium to a person, who failed to explain delay and who is guilty of delay and laches. Then the Hon’ble Apex Court referred to the importance of law of limitation and reiterated the principles laid down in Popat Bahiru Goverdhane Vs. Land Acquisition O