M. Seetharama Murti, J.— This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the orders dated 30.1.2012 of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram dismissing the application in E.A.No.104 of 2010 in E.P.No.55 of 2005 OSNo.45 of 2000 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone delay of 281 days in filing petition under Order XXI Rule 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure (‘the Code’, for short).

2. The facts, which are necessary for disposal of this revision, in brief, are as follows: ‘The property said to be of the revision petitioner/1st Judgment debtor (‘the petitioner’, for short) was sold in an auction held on 24.3.2009 by the Court of execution. However, the petitioner filed an execution application under Order XXI, Rule 89 of the Code for setting aside the auction. However, as the said application could not be filed within the time of sixty days allowed under law, the petitioner had filed E.A.No.104 of 2010 under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act for condonation of the delay of (281) days in filing the aforementioned application for setting aside the court auction sale of the E.P schedule property. The 1st respondent/Decree Holder (the 1st respondent, for short) and the auction purchaser/2nd respondent (‘the 2nd respondent’, for short) resisted the application filed by the petitioner. On merits, the trial Court had dismissed the application seeking condonation of delay filed by the petitioner. Aggrieved of the said orders, the present revision petition is preferred’.

3. In support of the request for condonation of delay, the petitioner had urged as under: ‘The petitioner is an uneducated sick woman having no worldly wisdom. She is not acquainted with court matters. Her husband is also an uneducated person. The Decree Holder having obtained a decree in a suit for recovery of money sought attachment of the property of the petitioner and brought the same to sale for realization of the decree debt. The property was sold in a Court auction on 24.3.2009. The petitioner suffered viral hepatitis, i.e., jaundice from 15.3.2009 to 20.2.2010 and, therefore, did not attend the court auction sale on 24.3.2009. She had filed a certificate issued by the doctor certifying her illness. Therefore, she could not also meet her advocate. The said fact of sale came to the knowledge of the petitioner on 19.2.2010. The petitioner is ready and willing to pay or deposit the debt due to the Decree Holder besides the necessary amounts payable for setting aside the court auction. In the circumstances, the petitioner could not file the application seeking permission to deposit the decree debt though the said application has to be filed within sixty days from the date of the auction. Hence, the petitioner had filed E.A.No.104 of 2010 for condonation of the delay in filing the application under Order XXI Rule 89 read with Section 151 of the Code. There are no wilful laches on the part of the petitioner in not filing the above said application in time. The 1st respondent and the 2nd respondent resisted the said application mainly on the grounds that Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act has no application to the instant proceedings and that the delay is not properly explained and that no explanation .for the delay from 20.2.2010 to 2.3.2010, i.e., till the date of filing of the application is not at all explained and that the cause mentioned is not correct and that the petition is filed to drag on the matter.

4. Now, the points for determination are “Whether the application in E.A. No. 104 of 2010 filed under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act is not maintainable? And, whether the petitioner had not made out valid and sufficient grounds for condonation of the delay in filing the application under Order XXI Rule 89 read with Section 151 of the Code?”

5. The facts which are necessary for consideration are already stated supra, in detail. In the first place, an application to set aside the sale of immovable property sold in execution