Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, a party seeking condonation of delay must provide a cogent and specific explanation for the entire duration of the delay, from the expiry of the limitation period until the date of application; vague or insufficient affidavits do not constitute 'sufficient cause'.

ORDER

1. This Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of CPC assailing the order passed by the learned XXVII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, I.A.No.1502 of 2018 in O.S.No.229 of 2014, dated 11.07.2022.

2. Petitioner is the petitioner - defendant and respondent is the respondent – plaintiff in I.A.No.1502 of 2018 in O.S.No.229 of 2014. The parties will be hereinafter referred to as petitioner – defendant and respondent – plaintiff.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner – defendant submits that the impugned order is contrary to the settled legal principles and failed to appreciate the genuine cause explained, which would certainly constitute sufficient cause for condoning the delay. On account of misperception on the part of the petitioner – defendant’s employees, the employer cannot be made to suffer and be denied of an opportunity to contest the matter on merits. The learned Trial Court committed error apparent on the face of the record by relying upon the facts that transpired much prior to the date of passing to the decree and the reasons assigned are wholly unwarranted, order lacks valid reasons. The learned Trial Court failed to understand that the primary function of the Courts are to adjudicate the dispute between the parties to advance substantial justice, the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court is without due consideration of facts in proper perspective and is against the settled legal maxim “audi alteram partem”. Counsel to substantiate his contention has relied on the decisions in the cases of (i) N.Balakrishnan¹(1998) 7 SCC 123 Vs. M.Krishnamurthy, (ii) Lekh Raj²(2001) 2 SCC 762 Vs. Muni Lal and Others, (iii) Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract and Leasing, Kota Vs. Shukla and Brothers³(2010) 4 SCC 785, (iv) A.V.Papayya Sastry and Others Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others⁴(2007) 4 SCC 221, (v) Sanjay Kumar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand⁵(2022) 7 SCC 247, (vi) Mohamed Ali Vs. V.Jaya and Others⁶(2022) 10 SCC 477, (vii) Ashok Kumar Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited⁷2023 INSC 659, (viii) Dwarika Prasad (D), through LRs Vs. Prithvi Raj Singh⁸2024 SCC OnLine SC 3828, (ix) Meenakshisundaram Textiles Vs. Valliammal Textiles Limited⁹MANU/TN/1715/2011, (x) Dhapu Bai and Others Vs. Kundu Mg (Joint Venture), Delhi and Another¹⁰2023 SCC OnLine MP 6880, (xi) M/s.Cadila Healthcare Limited Vs. Dr.Abburi Ramaiah and another¹¹COMCA.No.31 of 2023, dated 16.10.2023 in the High Court for the State of Telangana.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent - plaintiff submits that petitioner – defendant has not shown any bona fide reasons to condone the delay of 180 days to set aside the ex-parte judgment and decree. The learned Trial Court has assigned cogent reasons and rightly dismissed the delay application. Counsel to substantiate his contention has relied on the decisions in the cases of (i) Desh Raj Vs. Balkishan (dead) Through Proposed Legal representative MS Rohini¹²(2020) 2 SCC 708, (ii) Yashpal Jain Vs. Sushila Devi and Others¹³2023 SCC OnLine SC 1377, (iii) Thirunagalingam Vs. Lingeswaran and another¹⁴2025 SCC OnLine SC 1093, (iv) Sivella Yadaiah Vs. V.Pruthvi¹⁵2020 (6) ALD 432 (TS), (v) M/s.Telangana State Industrial Development Corporation Limited Vs. Sri Mark Raj Kumar and another¹⁶I.A.No.1 of 2025 In/And COMCA.No.1 of 2025, dated 25.07.2025, of the High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad..

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner - defendant has filed his written submissions and counsel for the respondent – plaintiff has filed synopsis.

6. Respondent – plaintiff has filed suit for recovery of money of Rs.26,36,263/- against the petitioner – defendant with interest at the rate of 18% per annum and with a direction to the defendant to pay an amount of Rs.96,339/- towards sales tax at the rate of 3% for non production of C Form.

7. Petitioner – defendant remained ex-parte before the learned Trial Court thereby an ex-parte