Judgment : Heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners. Respondents 1 and 2 are mother and daughter respectively. The first respondent died in the year 1994 leaving behind the second respondent, as legal heir. Learned Government Pleader filed memo in USR.No.697 on 30.04.2008 stating that the notice to R1 could not be served on account of her death in the year 1994 but her daughter, second respondent, is already on record. Apart from RPAD having been served on R2, another memo in USR.No.610 of 2007 is also filed showing the proof of service of personal notice on R2. Thus, second respondent effectively represents the respondents. However, nobody appears on behalf of second respondent. 2. It appears that the suit, being O.S.No.161 of 1988, was filed by the respondents/plaintiffs before the trial Court seeking the following relief: “Suit for declaration of confirmation of possession to declare that plaintiffs 1 and 2 are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by confirming their possession over the suit schedule property and to award the costs of the suit” 3. It would be noticed that there is no relief with regard to declaration of title nor any consequential relief prayed for by the plaintiffs. The suit schedule property is described as Ac.5.00 guntas of land out of Sy.No.609 at Yellandu village but the valuation of the suit was made at Rs.5,000/- and the Court fee of Rs.300/- was paid. Moreover, the petitioners/defendants were set ex parte and the suit was decreed under judgment and decree dated 08.02.1993, as prayed for, as per the judgment of the learned District Munsif, Yellandu and the text of the judgment reads as under: “PW.1 examined. Ex.A1 to A3 marked. Claim is proved. Suit is decreed as prayed for.” 4. Petitioners/defendants, thereafter, filed the present application, being I.A.No.284 of 1998, seeking condonation of delay of 2069 days along with an application to set aside the ex parte decree. The said application was dismissed by the Court below under the impugned order dated 03.07.2000, which is challenged in this revision. 5. Claim is proved. Suit is decreed as prayed for.” 4. Petitioners/defendants, thereafter, filed the present application, being I.A.No.284 of 1998, seeking condonation of delay of 2069 days along with an application to set aside the ex parte decree. The said application was dismissed by the Court below under the impugned order dated 03.07.2000, which is challenged in this revision. 5. Learned Government Pleader submits that the suit schedule land was alienated in favour of Singareni Collieries several years ago and when the respondents/plaintiffs filed the suit, the Government could not defend it, as the Mandal Revenue Officer was on an emergency office work and the Assistant Government Pleader (AGP) concerned was not available and could not make any representation on behalf of the Government. The affidavit filed by the MRO in support of the said application states that he was not aware of the posting and passing of ex parte decree and could not file the petition in time. He also states that the regular AGP’s post was not filled up and the AGP of Khammam used to represent the Government in cases, but on account of the reasons aforesaid, this suit could not be represented on behalf of the Government. The said application does not appear to have been opposed by filing counter by the plaintiffs but the Court below had proceeded to examine the application for condonation on the ground that the delay is abnormal and the reasons given by the petitioner in support of his application are vague. The Court below, therefore, declined to condone the delay. 6. It is, however, to be seen that the MRO has specifically stated that he was held up on account of the urgent work and could not represent the matter and in the absence of regular AGP, there was no representation before the Court when the matter was called and thereby, the ex parte decree came to be passed. He also states that he was not aware of passing of the decree and could not file petition earlier. There is no reason to doubt the said statement, as no litigant would stand to gain by not approaching the Court in time and the delay, which has occurred, appears circumstantial. He also states that he was not aware of passing of the decree and could not file petition earlier. There is no reason to doubt the said statement, as no litigant would stand to gain by not approaching the Court in time and the delay, which has occurred, appears circumstantial. Moreover, the extract of the judgment, passed by the lower Court, mentioned above, shows that though suit is decreed, as prayed for, it does not show any application of mind at all by the Court below. It is not understandable as to how the suit for confirmation of possession could lie and whether it can be valued notionally and merely because there is no opposition by the defendants whether such suit can be decreed merely for the asking. The Supreme Court in BALRAJ TANEJA v. SUNIL MADAN ( AIR 1999 SC 3381 )has already ruled as to what is expected of a Court even if the judgment and decree is passed ex parte and the at the minimum it should disclose application of mind by the Court even with respect to ex parte decree. Relevant portions of Pars 40A and 43 are extracted hereunder: “40A. “Judgment” as defined in Section 2(9) of the Code of Civil Procedure means the statement given by the Judge of the grounds for a decree or order. What a judgment should contain is indicated in Order 20, Rule 4(2) which says that a judgment: “shall contain a concise statement of the case, the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for such decision.” It should be a self-contained document from which it should appear as to what were the facts of the case and what was the controversy which was tried to be settled by the Court and in what manner. The process of reasoning by which the Court came to the ultimate conclusion and decreed the suit should be reflected clearly in the judgment.” 43.…Whether it is a case which is contested by the defendants by filing a written statement, or a case which proceeds ex parte and is ultimately decided as an ex parte case, or is a case in which the written statement is not filed and the case is decided under Order 8, Rule 10, the Court has to write a judgment which must be in conformity with the provisions of the Code or at least set out the reasoning by which the controversy is resolved” 7. I am, therefore, satisfied, that in the interest of substantial justice, the petitioners deserve an opportunity to be given to contest the suit on merits. It is also well settled that the length of the delay is not criteria, but a sufficient cause must be made out. In my view, in the absence of any contra claim by the respondents/plaintiffs, sufficient cause made out by the petitioners through the affidavit of the MRO ought to have been accepted by the Court below. At the same time, for the said long length of delay, the petitioners cannot be said to be absolved entirely. In view of the above, the civil revision petition is allowed by setting aside the order impugned and I.A.No.284 of 1998 stands allowed subject to condition that the petitioners deposit costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the credit of the suit before the Court below within a period of six (6) weeks from today. On such deposit, the second respondent shall be entitled to withdraw the same without any necessity of furnishing any security. Subject to the petitioners complying with condition imposed above, the Court below shall take up and decide the application of the petitioners for setting aside the ex parte decree and thereafter, proceed further in accordance with law and shall decide the suit after giving opportunity to the petitioners to file their pleadings and record evidence on either side, preferably within a period of six (6) months from today. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.