G. Rohini, J.@mdashThis revision petition is directed against the order dated 7.1.2004 in IA No. 204 of 2001 in OS No. 290 of 1995 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal.
2. The petitioner is the second defendant. The suit was filed for recovery of money. Though the petitioner filed a written statement, subsequently he was set ex parte and ultimately the suit was decreed on 29.7.1999. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application under Order 9 , Rule 13 of CPC to set aside the ex parte decree along with the IA No. 204 of 2001 u/s 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 172 days. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff. The Court below having considered the entire material on record dismissed IA No. 204 of 2001 by order dated 7.1.2004, which is under challenge in this revision petition.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing for respondents.
4. It is to be noted that in the affidavit filed in support of IA No. 204 of 2001 there was absolutely no explanation with regard to the delay. The petitioner merely stated that he came to know about the ex parte decree on 15.12.2000 and thereafter he made an application to set aside the decree in February, 2001.
5. It is true that the Courts shall be liberal in considering the application to condone the delay so as to advance substantial justice to the parties by deciding the matters on merits, but it cannot be expected that the delay would be condoned as a mater of course. When the applicant failed to offer any explanation much less "sufficient cause" for the delay, it cannot be held that the Court committed any error in rejecting the application. In the circumstances, I do not find any infirmity in the order of the Court below in dismissing the application.
6. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. No costs.
