ORDER :

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 08.09.2017 passed in I.A.No.84 of 2017 in O.S.No.255 of 2012 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli.

2. The petitioner herein is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff in the suit in O.S. No.255 of 2012. I.A No.84 of 2017 was filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay of 1298 days in filing petition to set aside the ex parte decree passed on

08.03.2013.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent herein is the plaintiff filed suit in O.S No.255 of 2012 before the trial Court against the petitioner herein for recovery of an amount of Rs.86,000/- being the principal and interest due on a promissory note dated 29.08.2009 executed by the petitioner/defendant in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. The said suit was decreed and the petitioner/defendant made ex parte. Aggrieved by the same, the present I.A No.84 of 2017 has been filed by the petitioner to set aside the ex parte decree by condoning the delay of 1298 days. The same was dismissed by the trial Court by order dated 08.09.2017. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

4. Heard Mr. K.S. Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner. Despite service of notice, no one appeared on behalf of the respondents.

5. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner has shown sufficient cause for condonation of delay and that the delay was not abnormal and it was only due to communication gap between the petitioner and his counsel, the trial Court has passed the impugned order. He further submits that the trial Court ought to have seen that the counsel engaged earlier in the main suit by the petitioner and his clerk Madhubabu did not inform him when the matter was posted for written statement and therefore he was set ex parte. 6. On hearing, this Court observed that the alleged promissory note was dated 29.08.2009 and the date on the plaint is 29.08.2012 and the court fee was paid on 5.10.2012. Therefore, the limitation of three years was over and the suit was barred by Limitation. This Court further observed that the clerk did not inform about the date of filing written statement to the petitioner. But whatever the reason stated by the petitioner is not acceptable. When the case is pending before trial Court, it is his bounden duty to approach his advocate to know the status of his case.

7. It is pertinent to mention here that under Section 5 of Limitation act, court is having ample power to set aside the ex pate provided the other party is able to show sufficient cause.

8. In a case of Ganta Narsimha Rao vs. Ganta Kanakamma1, wherein the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad held that :

It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the Court. Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter; acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to a want of acceptable explanation, whereas in certain other cases, delay of a very long range can be condoned as the explanation thereof is satisfactory. Once the Court accepts the explanation as sufficient, it is the result of positive exercise of discretion and normally the superior Court

1 2006 (3) ALD 667

should not disturb such finding, much less in revisional jurisdiction, unless the exercise of discretion was on wholly untenable grounds or arbitrary or perverse. But it is a different matter when the first Court refuses to condone the delay. In such cases, the Superior Court would be free to consider the cause shown for the delay afresh and it is open to such superior Court to come to its own finding even untrammeled by the conclusion of the lower Court.

Ultimately, keeping in view broadly the various principles laid down by the Apex