ORDER :

1. Instant revision petition is preferred by the petitioner/plaintiff/non-applicant aggrieved from order dated 06.01.2017 in Civil Misc. Application No. 192/2012 passed by learned Additional District Judge No.6, Jaipur Metropolitan whereby an application under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC filed by defendant no.1/respondent/applicant was allowed and judgment and decree dated 03.01.2012 in civil suit no. 271/2008 (168/2006), in favour of petitioner/plaintiff was set aside.

2. In brief, the facts of the matter inter alia are that a civil suit filed by petitioner/plaintiff on 13.11.2006 for recovery of Rs.37,05,172/- along with interest of 11% p.a. from 07.02.2004 till institution of suit, and 12% p.a. after institution of suit, wherein Defendant no.1 applicant has filed written statement but no written statement was filed on behalf of respondent/defendant no.2. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, four issues were framed. After examination of three witnesses, the evidence of plaintiff was closed on 07.07.2011 and thereafter the matter was fixed for evidence of defendant on 04.08.2011. On 04.08.2011, 24.08.2011, 16.09.2011 and 16.10.2011 time was sought on behalf of defendant/respondent no.1 for production of evidence. On 13.10.2011 affidavit of Sharad Dave was filed on behalf of defendant no.1 and the matter was fixed for cross-examination on 01.11.2011 but on 01.11.2011 the witness remained absent and the matter was fixed for 25.11.2011. On 25.11.2011 the evidence of defendant no.1 was closed and the matter was fixed for final hearing on 09.12.2011. On 09.12.2011, counsel for defendant/respondent no.1 pleaded no instruction and the trial court heard the arguments of counsel for plaintiff and defendant no.2 and fixed the matter for pronouncement of judgment on 22.12.2011. On 22.12.2011 the matter was deferred to 03.01.2012 and on 03.01.2012 the judgment was pronounced.

3. Aggrieved from aforesaid judgment and decree, an application under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC was filed by applicant/defendant/respondent no.1 on 18.09.2012, which was allowed on 06.01.2017 at a cost of Rs.2500/- and as a result the judgment and decree dated 03.01.2012 was set aside.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner/plaintiff while relying upon grounds of instant petition submitted that defendant no.1 applicant has participated in whole trial till the stage of argument but when the matter was taken-up for arguments, counsel for defendant/respondent no.1 has deliberately pleaded no instruction. He also submitted that before pleading no instruction, a notice was said to be sent to the defendant no.1 for participation in the proceedings by the then counsel but defendant/respondent no.1 deliberately avoided the participation in the proceedings of civil suit. He also submitted that after passing of the decree, an application was moved for setting aside decree but after a delay, as no application was moved by the defendant/respondent no.1 within prescribed 30 days. He relied upon judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Champalal through LRs Vs. Kaushal Kumar and Ors. (S.B. Civil Appeal No. 5913/2011 dated 04.07.2016) to submit that Article 123 of Limitation Act is applicable for calculation of limitation. He also submitted that to move an application for condonation of delay in support of application under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC, it is necessary for the applicant/defendant to show sufficient cause. He also submitted that the trial court has erred while considering the application of condonation of delay under Section 5 of Limitation Act. He relied upon judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and submitted that without sufficient cause, no application can be allowed.

5. He also relied upon judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sunil Poddar and Ors. Vs. Union of India (2008) 2 SCC 326 and also judgmen