JUDGMENT : D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU, J. 1. This revision petition is filed questioning the order dated 11-12-2017 passed by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada in EA. No. 378 of 2017 in EP. No. 83 of 2014 in OS. No. 1009 of 2011. 2. The application EA. No. 378 of 2017 is filed to condone the delay of 920 days in filing the application to set aside the ex parte order. The application is contested and the impugned order came to be passed by which the Court dismissed the application. Questioning the same, the present revision has been filed. 3. This Court has heard Sri K. Jyothi Prasad, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri V.S.R. Anjaneyulu, learned counsel for the respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued that the revision petitioner is a widow and that the suit is filed for recovery of a debt allegedly due by her husband. According to the learned counsel, against the judgment and decree, which is passed in the suit on 20-03-2014, a first appeal has been filed bearing SR. No. 290 of 2018 along with an application to condone the delay. Learned counsel submits that the enquiry in the application filed to condone the delay in filing the appeal is pending before the District Court and that the appeal is not numbered. He points out that in the interim period, the property that is valued at ` 15 lakhs is being brought for sale for recovery of a debt of ` 7.74 lakhs. In addition, learned counsel also points out that the petitioner met some third parties who are the relatives of deceased husband, who promised that the matter would be settled. Believing the said representation, the judgment debtor/revision petitioner did not contest the execution petitioner. Therefore, it is the submission of the learned counsel that the petitioner was set ex parte on 16-04-2015 as she relied upon the fraudulent representations of her husband's relatives. Hence, the prayer is made to condone the delay of 920 days. 5. In reply to this, learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that the suit was decreed after contest. He drew the attention of the Court to the judgment and decree passed on 20-03-2014 which clearly shows that a counsel appeared on behalf of the defendants and argued the matter. 5. In reply to this, learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that the suit was decreed after contest. He drew the attention of the Court to the judgment and decree passed on 20-03-2014 which clearly shows that a counsel appeared on behalf of the defendants and argued the matter. Counsel points out that the present revision petitioner was also examined as D.W.1 in the case. In addition, counsel points out that the execution petition was filed in November, 2014 and notices were admittedly served on the revision petitioner, yet she did not choose to contest the matter. Counsel also points out that a bare averment is made that the petitioner' and her children were misguided by some relatives and that absolutely no details are given of the said relatives or of the alleged wrong/fraudulent actions. 6. Counsel points out that although the application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the attempt of the petitioner is to contest the execution petition itself, as can be seen from the various averments made about the value of the property, the adjournments taken, the lack of proper notice etc. Lastly, the learned counsel submits that the execution petition was filed in 2014; the appeal against the judgment and decree was filed on 30-11-2017 and the present application was moved on 18-01-2018. Counsel points out that all of these actions are part of a concerted plan to delay and defeat the decree. Counsel also argues that the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, is not at all carefully drafted and it does not clearly explain, who were the relatives, who are supposedly contacted and what is the deceit or fraud that is supposedly played. Learned counsel strongly urged that virtually no reasons are given for condonation of the delay. 7. Now the point for consideration is whether the Court below exercised its discretion correctly or not. 8. This Court after examining the facts notices that the judgment and decree were passed in March, 2014. After decree was passed, execution was levied on 12.11.2014 and till date, namely 2019, the property was not brought to sale. 9. 7. Now the point for consideration is whether the Court below exercised its discretion correctly or not. 8. This Court after examining the facts notices that the judgment and decree were passed in March, 2014. After decree was passed, execution was levied on 12.11.2014 and till date, namely 2019, the property was not brought to sale. 9. In addition, this Court also notices that the affidavit that is filed does not state who are the "relatives" who have actually misguided the judgment debtor and her children; what is their connection with the judgment debtors, the decree holder and the present suit etc. The law is fairly clear on this subject. Order VI, Rule 4 CPC mandates that if malice, fraud, improper conduct etc., are alleged, the same should be categorically pleaded and proved. Admittedly, the revision petitioner received the notice in the execution petition. Para 5 of the affidavit filed to condone the delay merely says that she and her children were misguided by some relatives. Absolutely, no details whatsoever are given of the said actions of those relatives. A reading of the affidavit also shows that the revision petitioner is fully aware of the proceedings and the adjournment. Yet no clear and categorical details are given for the delay and the cause for the delay. 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy 2013 (12) SCC 649 : 2014 (1) ALT 1 .2 (DN SC), clearly held in para 22.1(a) that an application for condonation of delay should be drafted with careful concern and not in a haphazard manner. Similarly, in para 22.4(d) the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as follows:- "The increasing tendency to perceive delay as a non-serious matter and, hence, lackadaisical propensity can be exhibited in a nonchalant manner requires to be curbed, of course, within legal parameters." 11. In addition to this, learned counsel for the respondent also relied on B. Madhuri Goud v. B. Damodar Reddy (2012) 12 SCC 693 and argued that in similar circumstances when an appeal was filed after an ex parte decree was passed and no satisfactory explanation is given, the delay cannot be condoned. 12. This Court also notices the increasing tendency to draft affidavits in a casual manner. 12. This Court also notices the increasing tendency to draft affidavits in a casual manner. When issues of fraud, malice and improper behavior are stated as the reason or the cause for the delay, there should be clarity in the affidavit. Details of the alleged fraud/improper advise, details of the persons who are responsible for the same etc., should be pleaded with clarity. Since matters of this nature are decided mostly on affidavits, there is an absolute need for clarity in the affidavit. Simply, saying that the petitioner met with some relatives, who misguided her is not sufficient. Facts with sufficient details need to be stated on oath so that the truth can be ascertained. Condonation of delay cannot be taken for granted. The note of caution sounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that an applications for condonation of delay should be drafted with careful concern cannot be over emphasized. The tendency to treat condonation of delay in a casual manner is a practice that needs to be curbed. 13. The case on hand is a classic example of this. The revision petitioner is aware of the filing of the suit. She deposed in the suit as a witness. She is aware of the ex parte decree that was passed and an application filed by her in IA. No. 884 of 2015 to set aside the decree was dismissed. She received the notice in the execution application. Later, she supposedly met some relatives who misguided her. The tone and tenor of her affidavit filed to condone the delay is not that of a mere house wife since a number of legal pleas were raised. Therefore, it is clear that she had the benefit of clear legal advise before filing the application. Hence, a greater duty was cast on the party to furnish the details and also on her counsel to draft the affidavit with greater clarity and with sufficient details but the same was not done. 14. Time and again it has been noticed that the travails of a decree holder/party begin after a decree is obtained. Execution of a decree is often more difficult and frustrating than obtaining a decree itself in many cases. A decree which was passed in 2014 has not resulted in an effective execution and an execution petition filed in March, 2014 has still not yielded any result to the decree holder till date. 15. Execution of a decree is often more difficult and frustrating than obtaining a decree itself in many cases. A decree which was passed in 2014 has not resulted in an effective execution and an execution petition filed in March, 2014 has still not yielded any result to the decree holder till date. 15. This Court, after an examination of the facts in this case is of the clear opinion that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme court of India in Esha Bhattacharjee's case (1 supra) case is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances. There is no satisfactory explanation for the delay that is caused. The delay of 920 days can by no means said to be a small delay. The reasons given are also not clear. The length of the delay is not important but the sufficiency of the reasons are important. Viewed from this perspective also the present affidavit is wholly lacking in proper reasons. Even though the words "sufficient cause" has been liberally interpreted, they cannot be so liberally interpreted as to defeat the provisions of law. The discretion that this Court has in the words of the Apex Court in Lanka Venkateswarlu v. State of A.P. (3) 2011 (2) ALT 55 (SC) : (2011) 4 SCC 363 is not an unbridled or unlimited power, but is a power which should be exercised in a systematic manner informed by reason. 16. In the case on hand, for all the above reasons and in view of the law, this Court finds no merits in the revision petition and accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. 17. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this revision shall stand closed.