the Court and as seen from the record, the same was transferred in December, 2013 to the VII Additional District judge at Bodhan. The same came up for consideration on 07.04.2014. On 07.04.2014, the I.A.No.905 of 2012 was allowed on payment of costs of Rs.100/- and as the costs were not paid by the next date of hearing i.e. 17.04.2014, the I.A. No.905 of 2012 came to be dismissed. The I.A.No.207 of 2014 filed seeking restoration of I.A.No.905 of 2012 by condoning the delay of 131 days. One of the reasons stated in the affidavit for condonation of the delay is that the advocate, who was appearing at Nizamabad, did not inform the respondents-defendants about the transfer of the suit to the competent Court. Though the explanation on the face of it appears to be an excuse invented for the purpose of condonation of delay, which could have been easily verify by taking into consideration of the appearance of advocate in the competent Court, the explanation cannot be totally brushed aside. At any rate, the learned Judge had condoned the delay by putting the defendants on terms of imposing punitive costs of Rs.2,000/- to be paid on or before 21.10.2014. The Order is considering inasmuch as the delay condonation petition, further the suit itself is filed by the revision petitioners-plaintiffs is for recovery of damages, not setting aside the ex parte order would not be in the interest of plaintiffs in such kind of suits. In that view of the matter, the impugned Order of the learned Judge in condoning the delay of 131 days, does not require any interference.
