L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THIS civil revision petition (CRP) is filed against the order of the i Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, krishna District, in IA. No. 224/93 in OS no. 335/87 dated 5-10-1999. Defendants 3 and 4 in the suit are the petitioners in this crp. ( 2 ) THE suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of amount against the 1st defendant, which is a Private limited Company, and defendants 2 to 5, who are the Directors of the 1 st defendant company. Defendants 2 and 5 remained ex parte. The petitioners herein and the 1st defendant filed written statements. However, an ex parte decree came to be passed on 30-10-1991. The petitioners filed an application in IA No. 224/93 under section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 424 days in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree. The trial court dismissed the said IA taking a view that the delay was not properly explained. Hence, the present C. R. P. ( 3 ) MR. M. B. N. Srinivas, appearing for Sri Vedula Venkataramana, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were very much vigilant, that as soon as they received the suit summons they engaged an advocate and also filed their written statements. He further states that on account of the lack of communication from the advocate, they could not take further steps and they became aware of the dismissal of the suit only when they received a notice from the Counsel for the plaintiff and as soon as they came to know about the same, they filed an application for setting aside the ex parte decree. He states that there was no negligence on the part of the petitioners in prosecuting the case and, at any rate, the delay was properly explained. ( 4 ) ON the other hand, Sri D. Prabhakar Reddy, the learned Counsel for the respondent, submits that when the petitioners engaged an advocate it was their duty to be in touch with their advocate from time to time and he further contends that the suit has been decreed only on account of the negligence on the part of the petitioners and they are now trying to shift the blame on their advocate. ( 5 ) BEFORE the trial Court, the petitioners have specifically pleaded that they could not take further steps in the suit since they did not receive any communication from their advocate. The trial Court did not accept this contention. The very fact that the petitioners herein filed their written statement, when the other defendants remained ex parte shows that the petitioners were not indifferent in prosecuting their case in the Court. Having regard to the fact that they have filed their written statements, it cannot be said that the petitioners were not vigilant. No harm would be caused to the respondent if the suit is decided on merits. On the other hand, if the petitioners who are not the principal debtors or borrowers, but only directors of the 1st defendant, are burdened with the ex parte decree, it will cause hardship to them. The delay, in the circumstances referred to above deserves to be condoned, however, subject to certain terms and conditions. ( 6 ) ACCORDINGLY, the delay in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree dated 30-10-1991 is condoned subject to the petitioners herein paying an amount of rs. 1,000/- (Rs. One thousand only) towards costs to the Counsel for the respondent, within three weeks from today. The impugned in IA No. 224/93 is set aside and the IA stands allowed. The CRP is accordingly allowed, but in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. ( 7 ) SINCE the suit is of the year 1987, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.