O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner, being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 14.03.2024 passed in I.A.No.320 of 2021 in Un-Registered CMA SR.No.1004 of 2017 on the file of the learned V Additional District Judge at Miryalaguda (for short, “the learned District Judge”), whereby the Interlocutory Application filed by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was dismissed.

02. Heard Sri S.Janardhan Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner. Though the notice was served on the respondent, none entered appearance. Perused the record.

03. The case of the petitioner is that she filed O.S.No.170 of 2010 before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda, against the respondent for recovery of money. Upon receipt of summons, the petitioner engaged counsel residing in Hyderabad and Miryalaguda to contest the suit. However, due to a communication gap between the petitioner and her counsel, no written statement was filed, resulting in an ex parte judgment and decree dated 08.04.2011 against her. The petitioner, an elderly rustic villager and housewife, came to know about the ex parte decree only on 21.12.2012 through her son, when she was informed by her the then counsel that Execution Petition No.40 of 2012 had been filed. Thereafter, the petitioner changed her counsel and filed I.A.No.1287 of 2012 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 580 days in filing a petition under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex parte decree.

04. It is further the case of the petitioner that the decree-holder took nearly four years to file a counter in the said application. The learned Senior Civil Judge, however, dismissed I.A.No.1287 of 2012 on 25.04.2016 holding that the delay was not satisfactorily explained. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred a CMA along with I.A.No.320 of 2021, presented on 28.04.2017, seeking condonation of delay of 337 days in filing the appeal, attributing the delay to her prolonged ill-health as an elderly woman.

05. It is further the case of the petitioner that the learned District Judge returned the papers with certain objections, directing compliance within seven days. Due to severe health issues, the petitioner could not represent the matter within time and subsequently re-presented the papers along with I.A.No.258 of 2021 under Section 148 CPC seeking condonation of delay of 1564 days in re-presentation. The said application was allowed on 21.09.2021 on humanitarian grounds to enable fair adjudication. Thereafter, the learned District Judge dismissed I.A.No.320 of 2021 by order dated 14.03.2024, without costs, holding inter alia that the petitioner was not vigilant, failed to participate in the enquiry, did not produce medical evidence in support of her ill-health, failed to explain the delay on a day-to-day basis, and appeared to have adopted dilatory tactics, including involving her son to evade execution proceedings. Aggrieved by the said impugned order dated 14.03.2024, the petitioner filed this Civil Revision Petition.

06. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Judge failed to consider the petitioner’s ill-health. He further submitted that the petitioner, aged about 88 years, has been bedridden for more than 10 years and is unable to travel or effectively instruct counsel due to age-related ailments. He also submitted that the petitioner has explained the sequence of events, including acquiring knowledge of the proceedings on 30.12.2016, obtaining certified copies, consulting counsel, and filing the application in April, 2017 despite her health issues, which constitutes sufficient cause. He further contended that the impugned order defeats the ends of justice by preventing the petitioner from contesting the ex parte decree in O.S.No.170 of 2010 on merits, thereby potentially leading to a miscarriage of justice.

07. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal