ORDER : 1. These Civil Revision Petitions are arising out of the impugned orders in I.A. Nos. 865 and 866 of 2019 both dated 28.11.2019 in O.S. No. 1433 of 2017 on the file of the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar. Accordingly, it is proposed to dispose of both the C.R.P. together, through this common order. 2. I.A. No. 865 of 2019 is filed by the petitioner/defendant under Order-IX, Rule-13 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short ‘CPC’) to set aside the ex-parte decree dated 18.09.2018 passed in the Original Suit No. 1433 of 2017. Whereas, I.A. No. 866 of 2019 is filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay of 277 days in filing an application under Order-IX, Rule-13 CPC to set aside the ex-parte decree dated 18.09.2018 in O.S. No. 1433 of 2017. Against the orders in I.A. No. 865 of 2019, C.R.P. No. 596 of 2020 and against the orders in I.A. No. 866 of 2019, C.R.P. No. 597 of 2020 are preferred by the plaintiff. 3. Heard learned counsel on both sides. Perused the material available on record. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as plaintiff and defendant as arrayed in the original suit. 4. The plaintiff has filed the Original Suit No. 1433 f 2017 for eviction of defendant from Plot No. 7 in Survey No. 125 admeasuring 3000 square yards, out of 4133.50 square yards, situated at IDA, Mallapur, Ranga Reddy District and for damages for use and occupation of the same at Rs. 1,00,000/- per month from the date of filing of the suit. 5. In this suit, the defendant remained absent on service of summons, he was set ex-parte and an ex-parte decree was passed by the trial Curt on 18.09.2018. Pursuant to the decree, the plaintiff has filed E.P. No. 19 of 2019. Notice was served in the said E.P. on the defendant. Then he approached the trial Court and filed an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay of 277 days in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte decree dated 18.09.2018 and another application filed under Order-IX, Rule-13 of CPC to set aside the ex-parte decree dated 18.09.2018. 6. Then he approached the trial Court and filed an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay of 277 days in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte decree dated 18.09.2018 and another application filed under Order-IX, Rule-13 of CPC to set aside the ex-parte decree dated 18.09.2018. 6. The contention of the defendant as discernible from the affidavit filed in support of the application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act in I.A. No. 866 of 2019 is that he has obtained the suit schedule property on lease, vide registered sale deed document No. 8021 of 2016, dated 04.07.2016 for a period of 9 years from 21.03.2015 on monthly rent basis for the purpose of manufacturing of UPVC aluminium, wood and wood related plastic, composite doors and window frames. He invested Rs.80 lakhs to raise walls and shed, underground pipes and installed the machinery. As per the lease deed, the lock-in period is 5 years from the date of occupation. He has been paying the rents regularly. Without his knowledge, the plaintiff has filed the original suit, obtained an ex-parte decree and only when notice in E.P. No. 19 of 2019 was served on him on 06.02.2019, he has come to know about the ex-parte decree dated 18.09.2018 and accordingly, prayed to condone the delay of 277 days in filing an application to set aside the ex-parte decree dated 18.09.2018. 7. The averments in the affidavit filed in support of the application in I.A. No. 865 of 2019 filed under Order-IX, Rule-13 of CPC are almost in similar lines. 8. These two applications were resisted by the plaintiff, who filed a detailed counter affidavit stating that execution of sale deed is admitted and the period of lease commences for a period of 9 years from 21.03.2015, but the defendant failed to pay the rental amount as prayed. Consequently, the plaintiff has terminated the tenancy through notice dated 22.04.2017 calling upon the defendant to pay the balance amount of Rs. 5,10,000/-. In the said notice, it is categorically stated that out of Rs. 11,60,000/- the defendant has paid Rs. 6.50 lakhs only and the balance is Rs. 5.10 lakhs. The defendant has caused damage to the backside of the compound wall and he has clandestinely removed the material of the plaintiff. All false averments are made against the plaintiff. 9. 5,10,000/-. In the said notice, it is categorically stated that out of Rs. 11,60,000/- the defendant has paid Rs. 6.50 lakhs only and the balance is Rs. 5.10 lakhs. The defendant has caused damage to the backside of the compound wall and he has clandestinely removed the material of the plaintiff. All false averments are made against the plaintiff. 9. In fact, the suit was filed in the year 2017. The defendant was set ex-parte on 07.11.2017. The suit was adjourned to 07.12.2017 and again to 12.12.2017, on that day, he filed chief examination affidavit. Thereafter, on 05.01.2018 documents were exhibited. Some more documents were received on 05.02.2018 and that on 27.02.2018 his evidence was closed. Thereafter, the suit was adjourned for arguments. Finally, it was decreed on 18.09.2018. Thereafter, he has filed EP. Accordingly, it is stated that from 2017 to 2019, he was prosecuting the suit and that at no point of time the defendant has turned up. Even in the EP also, the employee of defendant has appeared, obtained a date for filing vakalat by engaging an advocate, thereafter, failed to appear. Accordingly, on 01.03.2019 the defendant/judgment debtor was set ex-parte. Again on 22.03.2019 filed an application to set aside the order in EP, it was allowed. He has obtained several adjournments in EP in filing counter. After causing appearance, the matter was also referred to Lok Adalat. 10. Finally, as the counter could not be filed, again the defendant/judgment debtor was set ex-parte, warrant for delivery of possession was ordered on 16.08.2019. Again at this stage, the present applications are filed to condone the delay and to set aside the ex-parte decree. In fact, the defendant is liable to pay an amount of Rs. 13,34,670/- as on 28.07.2019. Ample opportunities were given to him, he failed to avail the opportunity. There are no merits in the application either to condone the delay of 277 days or to set aside the ex-parte decree dated 18.09.2018. 11. The learned counsel for the plaintiff, who is the revision petitioner before this court seeks to submit that at no point of time, the conduct of the defendant was not bona fide. He has been protracting the litigation to the best of his ability. In the original suit, despite service of summons, he has taken a false plea that summons were not served on him. He has been protracting the litigation to the best of his ability. In the original suit, despite service of summons, he has taken a false plea that summons were not served on him. Though he was set ex-parte on 07.11.2017, the said ex-parte decree was passed, almost after one year i.e., on 18.09.2018. During this interregnum period from the date of setting ex-parte and passing the ex-parte decree, no effort was made by the defendant to ascertain the status of the original suit. Again after filing of E.P. No. 19 of 2019, he caused appearance through somebody in the office. He was set ex-parte in the E.P. on 01.03.2019 filed an application on 21.03.2019 to set aside the ex-parte order in EP. That ex-parte order was set aside and he was given an opportunity to file counter. Despite granting ample opportunities, he failed to file counter till 17.07.2019. Thereafter, the trial Court has issued warrant for delivery of possession. At that stage, these two applications came to be filed, which itself reflects his conduct. He relied upon the principles laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and Others, (2103) 12 SCC 649. 12. In the above said decision at Para-21, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has broadly culled out the legal position and the principles for condoning the delay. There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice oriented, non-pedantic approach, while dealing with the application for condonation of delay. The Courts are not supposed to legalise injustice, but are obliged to remove injustice. The term “sufficient cause” should be understood in their proper spirit and purpose being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact situation. 13. The learned counsel for the defendant contends that there are no bona-fides on the part of the plaintiff. There is a distinction between delay of short term and inordinate delay and few days delay. In view of the delay on the part of the defendant, no rights are accrued in favour of the plaintiff and that the trial Court considering the consequences allowed the application condoning the delay on payment of Rs. 500/-. 14. There is a distinction between delay of short term and inordinate delay and few days delay. In view of the delay on the part of the defendant, no rights are accrued in favour of the plaintiff and that the trial Court considering the consequences allowed the application condoning the delay on payment of Rs. 500/-. 14. The facts of the case as discernible from the pleadings in the plaint and the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the petition are that the defendant has entered into a registered lease agreement for a period of 9 years with the plaintiff with effect from 21.03.2015, but failed to pay rents. Accordingly, the suit was filed for eviction and also claiming damages. It is a fact that during pendency of the suit, the defendant did not turn up. After an ex-parte decree was passed and E.P. No. 19 of 2019 was filed, the defendant/ judgment debtor appeared before the Court, that too, initially he sent his employee, failed to file vakalat, later, filed vakalat, when conditionally adjourned filed the counter in EP, thereafter the present application is filed to condone the delay. 15. Be that as it may, in view of the principles laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above decision relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff, the approach of the trial Court while dealing with an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act as well as under Order-IX, Rule-13 of CPC must be liberal and elastic rather than the narrow and pedantic. The manner in which the language of second proviso to Order-IX, Rule-13 CPC has been coached by the Legislature makes it obligatory to take into consideration the conduct of the parties while disposing of such applications. 16. The trial Court on careful analysis of the facts, considering the nature of dispute for advancing the cause of substantial justice without looking into the technical aspects or day-to-day explanation of the delay by the defendant/ judgment debtor, it allowed the said application filed by the defendant/judgment debtor to condone the delay of 277 days in filing the application under Order-IX, Rule-13 CPC. Consequently, that application was also allowed and the ex-parte decree dated 18.09.2018 was set aside. I see no manifest error on the face of record and the order impugned is sustained and does not warrant in any interference by this Court. 17. Consequently, that application was also allowed and the ex-parte decree dated 18.09.2018 was set aside. I see no manifest error on the face of record and the order impugned is sustained and does not warrant in any interference by this Court. 17. In the result, both the Civil Revision Petition are dismissed confirming the orders in I.A. Nos. 865 and 866 of 2019 both dated 28.11.2019 in O.S. No. 1433 of 2017 on the file of the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy at L.B. Nagar. However, in the circumstances of these cases, there shall be no order as to costs. 18. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.