ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Despite service of notice none appears for the respondents.

2. Relying upon the depositions, which were recorded in the application filed to condone the delay before the trial Court in I.A.No.212 of 2012 in O.S.No.145 of 1997. A perusal of the appendix evidence shows that three witnesses were examined for the defendants/petitioners and respondent No.1/ plaintiff also appeared.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the application was filed on various grounds to condone the delay and one important aspect that was raised is that, they had entrusted the matter to the counsel at Guntur. And that Defendant No.1 in the suit being the eldest, was looking after the litigation. It is clearly stated that, the counsel would be looking after the matter but he did not convey the information to the parties. It is categorically asserted that the advocate assured them that he will look after the matter and intimate them whenever the presence is necessary. Basing on the said belief, it is stated that they have not personally and physically pursued the matter. He pointed out that this application was resisted by the plaintiffs. Thereafter, the oral evidence was also let in and documents were marked in the delay condonation petition itself. It is stated that, the essential elements and important aspects urged in the chief affidavit were not touched upon in the cross examination, namely the fact that the counsel at Guntur engaged was shifted to Hyderabad and therefore, there was no communication. Apart from this, he pointed out that the other documents were also filed but same was not discussed in course of the order. He further pointed out that in the cross examination, the essential elements and the lack of communication between the counsel and the parties are not even discussed. He submits that the failure in cross examination as per the settled law, would amount to an acceptance of what is stated in the chief affidavit. He points out that findings of the lower Court that one of the defendants is literate and the theory that the father was looking of the litigation is not correct, because normally, in rural areas it is the father and the elder, who normally looks after the litigation and on that ground alone, the application should have been dismissed.

4. Lastly, he submits that if an opportunity is given, the present petitioners would cooperate to the disposal of the matter within three (03) months, since the written statement of 2/3 of the petitioners are already on record. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that one opportunity must be given to the present petitioners.

5. The matter was heard at length, the fact that there is no pointed cross examination on the main ground raised for condonation of delay is apparent from the record. The petitioners were resisting on the fact that, their counsel has shifted his practice to Hyderabad and there is no communication, this aspect has not been really disputed. In addition, this Court also accept the fact that there are certain matters where the party expected to follow upon day to day basis and certain other matters where his presence on daily basis is not really necessary in the Court of Law. Particularly, this aspect cannot be overlooked when the petitioners are agriculturist and admittedly 2/3 parties are illiterate.

6. The other issues raised are also the issue of importance but they are not really relevant for the sake of present application.

7. As per the settled law on the subject, this length of delay is important but the sufficiency of the reasons that is important.

Since the valuable rights pertaining to land, which is important for agriculturists are raised and as the explanation offered has not really been in any way contraverted to the respondents more so, in the evidence, this Court is of the opinion that sufficient cause has been made out for condonation of delay.

8. The Civil Revision Petition is allo