ORDER
R. Ramanujam, J.
1. This revision petition is filed against the order of the Junior Civil Judge, Hindupur in I.A.No. 645 of 2000 in O.S.No. 43 of 1993 dated 23-1-2001 dismissing the petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
2. The petitioner herein is the 8th defendant in O.S.No. 43 of 1993. That suit was instituted by the respondents herein who are none other than the sisters of the petitioner herein for partition of the suit schedule property. The petitioner contested that suit for some time. Thereafter, he allowed the suit to be decreed ex parte against him on 29-7-1998. Long time thereafter, he filed I.A.No. 645 of 2000 seeking to condone the delay of 685 days in filing the petition for setting aside the ex parte preliminary decree dated 29-7-1998 passed against him. The case of the petitioner is that from the date of service of summons in the suit, plaintiffs 1 and 2 are making efforts for amicable settlement of the suit outside the Court and believing their representation, he did not take steps to file the petition for setting aside the ex part decree dated 29-7-1998 in time. It is his further case that the delay that has occurred was not wilful and is therefore liable to be condoned.
3. The respondents herein filed a counter stating that the petitioner herein could not and did not show any cause much less sufficient cause to condone the delay and the petition is filed only to drag on the proceedings.
4. On consideration of the rival contentions, the learned Judge dismissed the application holding that the petitioner has failed to show any sufficient cause to condone the delay of 685 days in filing the petition for setting aside the ex parte decree.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. O. Manohar Reddy, reiterated the aforementioned case of the petitioner and submitted that the learned Judge ought to have taken a reasonable view and condoned the delay.
6. I am not able to agree with the aforesaid contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The only cause shown by the petitioner is that he did not file the set aside petition under Order 9 Rule 3 of the Code of the Civil Procedure as the plaintiffs in the suit are making efforts for amicable settlement of the matter outside the Court. The petitioner neither examined himself as a witness nor any other independent witnesses to establish the said plea. In the absence of any supporting evidence, the cause shown by the petitioner cannot be termed as a sufficient cause. Dealing with a case in similar factual scenario, a Division Bench of this Court in D. Bharathi v. G. Sujatha, 1999 (3) ALT 504 (D.B.) observed:
“A close reading of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that the Legislature has, advisedly, left the term “sufficient cause” undefined and unillustrated, for what is sufficient cause in one case may not be so in another case. Thus, the term is kept elastic and unfettered discretion has been conferred on the Court to do substantial justice considering the facts and circumstances of the case. Though no hard and fast rule can be laid down regarding the condonation of delay, the superior Courts and the Apex Court have issued several guidelines, from time to time, as to how the discretion has to be exercised. The sum and substance of those guidelines is that the discretion has to be exercised judiciously and the approach of the Court should be liberal and pragmatic but not pedantic. The guiding principle is that justice should not be sacrificed on the altar of technicalities. But, at the same time, the Court should not lose sight of the statutory requirement of existence of “sufficient cause” and condone the delay on equitable grounds.”
7. As already noted, the petitioner in this case could not and did not show any sufficient cause for condoning the delay even on equitable grounds.
8. For the aforementioned reasons, I do not find any error in the exercise of the jurisdiction by the learned Junior Civil Judge while dismissing the order under revision.
9. The Civil Revision Petition therefore, fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.