ORDER :

This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 22.04.2016 in I.A.No.377 of 2011 in O.S.No.94 of 2010, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner-defendant No.4 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short, 'CPC') seeking to condone the delay of 235 days in filing the petition under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, was dismissed.

2. Heard Mr. V.Ravi Kiran Rao, learned senior counsel, representing Mr. V.Rohit, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. Narashima Chari, learned counsel for respondent No.1. Perused the record.

3. The first respondent herein/plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.94 of 2010 against respondent Nos.2 to 4/defendants 1 to 3 and revision petitioner herein/defendant No.4 for partition of the suit schedule properties. Suit summons were served on defendant Nos.1 to 3 and the summons against defendant No.4 were returned unserved, as refused. Thereafter, ex parte judgment and decree was passed on 20.12.2010. Respondent No.1 filed an application for appointment of Advocate-Commissioner in the final decree petition. Immediately, the revision petitioner filed application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex parte preliminary decree along with an application in 1.A.No.377 of 2011 to condone the delay of 235 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree. Respondent No.1 herein resisted the same by filing counter affidavit denying the allegations. On a consideration of the material on record, the trial Court dismissed I.A.No.377 of 2011 vide orders dated 22.04.2016 stating that the revision petitioner failed to explain proper and sufficient cause to condone the delay of 235 days . Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed.

4. Mr. Ravi Kiran Rao, learned senior counsel, apart from making oral submissions also filed written submissions, vehemently contends that the trial Court has committed error in dismissing the application file to condone the delay of 235 days in filing the application to set aside the ex parte preliminary decree. Learned senior counsel further contends that the Courts have to take a liberal and pragmatic justice oriented, non-pedantic approach while dealing with the applications filed for condonation of delay and he prayed to set aside the impugned order. Learned senior counsel placed reliance on the following decisions :

i. N.BALAKRISHNAN v. M.KRISHNAMURTHY, (1998) 7 SCC 123.

ii. S.GANESHA RAJU (DEAD) THROUGH LRs AND ANOTHER v. NARASAMMA (DEAD) THRUOGH LRs. AND OTHERS, (2013) 11 SCC 341.

iii. ESHA BHATTACHARJEE v. MANAGING COMMITTEE OF RAGHUNATHPUR NAFAR ACADEMY AND OTHERS, 2014(1) ALD 21 (SC).

iv. R.KRISHNA KISTAIAH v. R.BALA NARSAIAH DIED) PER LRs AND OTHERS, 2014 (2) ALT 634 (DB).

v. ROBIN THAPA v. ROHIT DORA, AIR 2019 SC 3225.

5. Per contra, Mr. K. Narasimha Chari, learned counsel for the respondents, while supporting the impugned order, submits that the trial Court has rightly refused to condone the delay of 235 days in filing the petition to set order the ex parte preliminary decree, as the petitioner failed to show any sufficient cause for such delay and that the impugned order does not suffer from infirmity and prayed to dismiss the revision.

6. Thus, on hearing the submissions of both the learned counsel, the only question that arises for consideration is - whether the impugned order is sustainable in law?

7. The revision petitioner filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex parte preliminary with an application in I.A.No.377 of 2011 to condone the delay of 235 days in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree passed 20.12.2010.

8. It is the case of the revision petitioner that she purchased the suit 'A' schedule property i.e., land in Sy.No.158 to extent of Acs.01-04 Gts., situated at Kuda Kuda Village, Chivemla Mandal, Nalgonda District under a registered sale deed dated 27.02.2008 from re