ORDER
J. Eswara Prasad, J.
1. The petitioners are the defendants in O.S. No. 201/84 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Gooty, laid by the respondent for recovery of money. The suit was decreed ex parte on 5-6-91. The petitioners filed an application for setting aside the ex parte decree, along with I.A. No. 506/91 for condonation of delay of 30 days in filing the petition under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. The said application was dismissed by the learned Judge, resulting in the petitioners filing the present revision petition.
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the suit was being adjourned from time to time on several grounds, namely, that the plaintiff was not ready on certain days and that the defendants were not ready on certain other days and that the suit was finally posted for trial on 26-9-88. The suit was dismissed for default, as the plaintiff was not ready. The suit was later restored to file on 28-2-90 and was posted to 15-3-90. On 15-3-90 the plaintiff was not ready and the suit was posted to 11-4-90 on which date also the plaintiff was not ready. Later it was adjourned to 26-4-90 on which date both the parties were not ready. The suit was adjourned to 15-6-90 as a last chance for trial. On 22-8-90 the Counsel for the defendants reported no instructions and they were set ex parte. The said order was set aside on 9-4-91. The plaintiff was not ready on 22-4-91 when the suit was posted for trial. On 5-6-91 the Counsel for the petitioners herein was not present and the petitioners were set ex parte and after recording ex parte evidence the suit was decreed ex parte. Under such circumstances, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Counsel for the petitioners in the Court below filed an affidavit stating that he could not be present when the case was called on 5-6-91 and made out sufficient cause for his absence. He further submits that the petitioners were not aware of the ex parte decree till 1-10-91 and the second petitioner was not shown the registered letter received from his Counsel as he was sick and was not attending Office from 3-6-91 till 25-9-91 and that he came to know of the passing of the ex parte decree for the first time on 1-10-91 only and he immediately filed the application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. along another application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. In the said circumstances, the learned Counsel submits that the delay should be condoned. He further contends that during the pendency of the revision petition, pursuant to the conditional order of this Court 1/4th of the decretal amount and suit costs were deposited and that the petitioners are prepared to deposit a further sum equivalent to 1/4th of the decretal amount in accordance with the directions of this Court, as a condition for setting aside the ex parte decree and for condonation of delay.
3. The learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that no affidavits were filed on behalf of the petitioners in the lower Court and that no sufficient cause was made out for condonation of delay, nor for setting aside the ex parte decree. She further submitted that the amounts advanced by the respondent in the year 1974 remained unpaid till now and that there was no case worth the name in the suit for the petitioners to defend. She further contends that one of the petitioners received a letter from his Counsel intimating the date of the ex parte decree and that nothing was done till October, 1991 and therefore, the learned Judge was correct in dismissing the application.
4. In Collector, Land Acquisition, Ananthnag v. Katiji it was held that:
“the expression ‘sufficient cause’ employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice that being the life purpose for the existence of the institution of Courts.”
It was observed that:
“There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence or on account of mala fides and that the litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay.”
It was further held that:
“refusing to condone delay can result in meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated.”
It was also pointed out that:
“when delay is condoned the highest that cart happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.”
5. Keeping the above observations of the Supreme Court in view, the matter has to be examined. A perusal of the docket of the proceedings in the suit would show that the plaintiff was not deliberately participating in the trial of the suit and was absent on several days and even on dates when the matter was posted for trial, finally. The petitioners were once set ex parte when their Counsel reported no instructions and the ex parte decree was set aside and the matter was posted to 5-6-91 when the Counsel for the petitioners was absent and an ex parte decree was passed. The first petitioner is the Head Office, whereas the 2nd petitioner is the Branch Office of the 1st petitioner. The first petitioner’s Managing Director was looking after the affairs of the company. Obviously, the Manager of the 2nd petitioner was looking after the affairs of the company and was not aware of the passing of the ex parte decree till 1-10-91 as he was seriously ill and was not attending the office from 3-6-91 to 25-9-91. From the above mentioned facts, it is clear that it cannot be said that the delay has occasioned deliberately on account of culpable negligence or on account of mala fides as there was no presumption that delay was occasioned either way. Refusal to condone delay in the present case can result in the matter being thrown out at the very threshold without trial.
6. In the circumstances that 1/4th of the decretal amount as well as the costs have been deposited by the petitioners, pursuant to an interim direction, it must be taken into consideration that the ends of justice will be met in directing the petitioners to deposit a further 1/4th of the decretal amount as a condition for condoning the delay and for setting aside the ex parte decree. The revision is accordingly allowed and the order of the Court below is set aside and the delay is condoned on condition of the petitioners depositing a further 1/4th of the decretal amount, within four weeks from today and on payment of costs of Rs. 1,000/- within two weeks from today to the learned Counsel for the respondent, Smt. Sudha apart from the sum which was already deposited, pursuant to the interim directions of this Court. On the petitioners complying with this conditional order and filing the receipts evidencing compliance in the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Gooty, I.A. No. 506/91 shall stand allowed and the suit O.S. No. 201/84 stands restored, setting aside the ex parte decree passed therein. The learned Judge will expeditiously proceed with the trial of the suit and complete the same before the end of 1994 summer vacation. The parties shall co-operate in the speedy disposal of the suit and shall not seek adjournments. No costs.