ORDER : 1. Both the Civil Revision Petitions are arising out of Original Suit No.179 of 2015 on the file of the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal. Accordingly, it is proposed to dispose of both the CRPs, through this common order. 2. CRP No.2134 of 2019 is filed assailing the order dated 10.04.2019 in SR No.6064 of 2018 in OS No.179 of 2015 filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) to condone the delay of 482 days in filing an application to set aside the ex parte decree passed against the petitioners/defendants 1 & 2 on 31.07.2017 and to permit the defendants to defend the suit in the interest of justice. Feeling aggrieved by the rejection of the said I.A. at numbering stage, the CRP is filed. 3. CRP No.2928 of 2019 is filed assailing the order dated 22.10.2018 in IA No.550 of 2018 in OS No.179 of 2015 under Order-IX, Rule-7 r/w Sec.151 of CPC to set aside the ex parte order dated 29.09.2015 and to permit the defendants to file the written statement. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the said application, this CRP is filed. 4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as plaintiff and defendants as arrayed in the original suit. 5. Heard the learned counsel on both sides. Detailed submissions have been made on both sides which are more or less on pleaded lines. Therefore, it may not be necessary to refer such submissions in detail. However, they are received due consideration of the Court. Perused the material available on record. 6. The plaintiff has filed original suit No.179 of 2015 for partition and separate possession of the plaint schedule properties among the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 & 2 and for allotment of 1/3rd share to each of them. In the original suit, though suit summons were served on the defendants, they failed to file the written statement and remained absent, as such they were set ex parte on 29.09.2015. They have filed an application in IA No.550 of 2018 under Order-IX, Rule-7 r/w Sec.151 of CPC to set aside the said ex parte order against them. 7. The main averments of the affidavit filed in support of the application are that the suit was posted on 29.09.2015 for filing the written statement. They have filed an application in IA No.550 of 2018 under Order-IX, Rule-7 r/w Sec.151 of CPC to set aside the said ex parte order against them. 7. The main averments of the affidavit filed in support of the application are that the suit was posted on 29.09.2015 for filing the written statement. The first defendant was aged about 70 years and she was seriously bed-ridden, could not ask their advocate to draft the written statement. They have come to know about the passing of decree on receipt of notice in final decree proceedings in IA No.32 of 2017, as such the delay is caused in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree. The ex parte preliminary decree was passed on 31.07.2017. Thereafter, IA No.32 of 2017 is filed for passing final decree, then the defendants 1 & 2 have come to know about it and accordingly they have filed the application under Oder-IX, Rule-17 r/w Section 151 of CPC. That application was dismissed by the Court below with the following observation at para-7 of the order impugned in IA No.550 of 2018: “In the case on hand, present petition is filed to set aside the ex parte decree dated 31.07.2017, on 17.04.2018 under Order IX Rule 7 without filing petition under Section 5 of Limitation Act and not explained any reasons much less sufficient cause for the delay in taking steps to set aside the ex parte decree. Petitioners only explained the reason for not complying the order dated 29.09.2015 and not filing the written statement alone on that day, but not explained any reasons for the delay from 31.07.2017 to till 17.04.2018 in taking steps to set aside the ex parte decree. Therefore, the present petition is not maintainable without petition under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay and petitioners are not entitled for the relief.” 8. Thus, the above application filed under Order-IX, Rule-7 CPC without filing an application u/s.5 of Limitation Act and without explaining the delay was not considered by the Court below, as the defendants have failed to file the written statement and they were set ex parte on 29.09.2015 for not filing the written statement and that they failed to explain the delay from 31.07.2017 to till 17.04.2018 and no such application u/s.5 of Limitation Act was filed. Aggrieved by the said findings, CRP No.2928 of 2019 is filed. 9. While the matter stood thus, defendants 1 & 2 have filed another application in SR No.6064 of 2018 in OS No.179 of 2015 u/s.5 of Limitation Act r/w Sec.151 CPC to condone the delay of 482 days in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree dated 31.07.2017. 10. The main averments of the affidavit filed in support of the application are that the defendants could not file the written statement and they were set ex parte on 29.09.2015. The first defendant is aged above 70 years and she was seriously bed-ridden. The defendants could not give instructions to their counsel for drafting the written statement and it is only on receipt of notice in IA No.32 of 2017, they have realized that ex parte decree was passed on 31.07.2017 and filed an application in IA No.550 of 2018, but that application was dismissed by the Court below as not maintainable, since it is not filed along with Sec.5 of Limitation Act. Thus, there is delay of 482 days, it is not at all intentional since it is a suit for partition, rights of the parties are involved and there is every chance to get succeed in the original suit to get the suit dismissed, if the ex parte decree is set aside, accordingly, prayed to condone the delay of 482 days. 11. The trial Court after hearing the learned counsel for the defendants passed a detailed order dismissing the said application. Relevant portion of the order impugned in IA (SR) No.6064 of 2018 at para-7 is as under: “It is settle law that if there is a delay in taking steps to set aside the ex parte decree, initially the parties have to take steps for condonation of the delay by filing petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and after condonation of the delay, must take steps to set aside the ex parte decrees. One is not permitted to file petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act after dismissal of the petition filed by hi under Order-9, Rule-7 of CPC. One is not permitted to file petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act after dismissal of the petition filed by hi under Order-9, Rule-7 of CPC. As per the petitioner, they got knowledge of the ex parte decree on particular date and as same was disbelieved by the Court, petitioners are not permitted to go back and claim that they got knowledge of the e parte decree and delay was caused in taking steps, which is contrary to their own pleading. In the case on hand also, after dismissal of the petition filed under Order 9 Rule 7 of CPC, petitioners are not entitled to file petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay. There are no merits in the present petition, hence it is not proper to register the same. Point is answered accordingly. In the result, the petition is rejected. No order as to costs.” 12. Thus, the trial Court has held that after dismissal of the application under Order-IX, Rule-7 CPC, the defendants are not entitled to file application u/s.5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay and there are no merits in the application. Undisputedly, the original suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants 1 & 2 for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. As per the Case Status Information, the defendants failed to file the written statement and consequently, they were set ex parte on 29.09.2015. It is only after receipt of notice in final decree proceedings in IA No.32 of 2017, they approached their counsel and filed an application in IA No.550 of 2018 under Order-IX, Rule-7 CPC to set aside the ex parte order against them. By that time an ex parte order was culminated into ex parte decree, accordingly the Court below by recording the detailed reasons to the effect that when ex parte decree was passed on 31.07.2017, such application filed on 17.04.2018 without filing an application u/s.5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay of 482 days in filing the application under Order-IX, Rule-13 CPC, the application filed under Order-IX, Rule-7 CPC is not maintainable. 13. It is a fact that the defendants were not diligent, they failed to file written statement within the stipulated time and they were set ex parte on 22.09.2015. 13. It is a fact that the defendants were not diligent, they failed to file written statement within the stipulated time and they were set ex parte on 22.09.2015. Thereafter on receipt of notice in final decree proceedings, they have filed IA No.550 of 2018, but it was filed under wrong provision of law i.e., under Order-IX, Rule-7 CPC to set aside the ex parte order dated 31.07.2017. The trial Court is justified in dismissing the application holding that that application was filed on 17.04.2018, but it is not accompanied by Sec.5 of Limitation Act petition and also petition was filed under Order-IX, Rule-7 CPC, instead of Order-IX, Rule-13 CPC. 14. Be that as it may, immediately after dismissal of IA No.550 of 2018, the defendants have filed another application u/s.5 of Limitation Act on 24.12.2018, vide SR No.6064 of 2018. The trial Court has again dismissed this application holding that after dismissal of the application under Order-IX, Rule-7 CPC (IA No.550 of 2018), the present application u/s.5 of Limitation Act is not maintainable. 15. It is true that the present application is filed after dismissal of application in IA No.550 of 2018, since it was not accompanied by Sec.5 Limitation Act Petition and it is also filed under wrong provision of law i.e., filed under Order-IX, Rule-7 CPC, instead of filing under Order-IX, Rule-13 CPC. 16. The learned counsel for the defendants seeks to submit that it is a defect of the counsel and the parties are innocent and that for the defect of the counsel, the parties cannot be made to suffer. Further argued that procedure is only meant to facilitate the administration of justice and not to defeat the same. The procedural and technical hurdles shall not be allowed to come in the way of Court while doing substantial justice. If the procedural violation does not seriously cause prejudice to adversary party, in such circumstances, courts must clean towards doing substantial justice rather than relying upon procedural and technical violation. 17. On perusal of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application filed u/s.5 of Limitation Act, the contention of the defendants is that the first defendant is aged about more than seventy years, she was seriously bed ridden and the defendants could not contact their counsel to instruct him to file written statement. In the meanwhile, they were set ex parte. In the meanwhile, they were set ex parte. Thereafter, they received notice in final decree proceedings petition and then they have approached their counsel and filed IA No.550 of 2018. Immediately, after dismissal of the said IA No.550 of 2018 filed under Order-IX, Rule-7 CPC, the present application is filed u/s.5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay of 482 days. Be it stated that the rights of the parties in respect of immovable properties are involved and the plaintiff has filed this suit seeking 1/3rd share towards herself and another 1/3rd share to the defendant No.1, and the other 1/3rd share to the defendant No.2 and final decree proceedings in IA No.32 of 2017 are still pending. In such circumstances, if the defendants are allowed to contest the suit on heavy terms, no prejudice would cause to the plaintiff and the plaintiff may be compensated in terms of costs. 18. The law is well settled that “sufficient cause” within the meaning of Sec.5 of Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction, so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fide is imputable to the party. In a particular case, whether explanation furnished would constitute sufficient cause or not will depend upon the facts of each case and there cannot be any straitjacket formula for accepting or rejecting the explanation furnished for the delay caused in taking steps or filing an application u/s.5 of Limitation Act. But, the Courts should not proceed with the tendency of finding fault with the cause shown and reject the petition (Ram Nath Sao alias Ram Nath Sahu and others v. Gobardhan Sao and others, AIR 2002 SC 1201 ). 19. In Sital Prasad Saxena v. Union of India, (1985) 1 SCC 163 , it was observed that rules of procedure are designed to advance justice and should be so interpreted and to make them penal statues for punishing erring parties. On sufficient cause the delay in bringing the legal representatives of the deceased party on record should be condoned, procedure is only meant to facilitate the administration of justice and not to defeat the same. 20. On sufficient cause the delay in bringing the legal representatives of the deceased party on record should be condoned, procedure is only meant to facilitate the administration of justice and not to defeat the same. 20. In Sugandhi (dead) by LRs and another v. P. Rajkumar represented by his Power Agent Imam Oli, (2020) 10 SCC 706 , it is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that procedural and technical hurdles shall not be allowed to come in the away of court while doing substantial justice. If the procedural violation does not seriously cause prejudice to the adversary party, courts must lean towards doing substantial justice rather than relying upon the procedural and technical violations. 21. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, the plaintiff has filed the present suit for partition, the defendants 1 & 2 were not diligent in prosecuting their case and they failed to file written statement, they were set ex parte. They approached the Court only after receipt of notice in final decree proceedings and filed IA No.550 of 2018 to set aside the ex parte order under Order-IX, Rule-7 CPC, instead of filing of an application under Order-IX, Rule-13 CPC, supported by another application to condone the delay to set aside the ex parte decree. Considering the fact that rights of the parties in respect of immovable properties are involved in a suit for partition and final decree proceedings are still pending, I am of the considered view that for advancing cause of substantial justice in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the petitioners/defendants are entitled for one more opportunity, but on heavy terms to compensate the other side. 22. In view of filing of Section 5 Limitation Act petition, vide SR No.6064 of 2018, no further orders are required in CRP No.2928 of 2019, which was filed assailing the orders in IA No.550 of 2018 under Order-IX, Rule-7 CPC. Accordingly, CRP No.2928 of 2019 is dismissed. 22. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the nature of original suit in OS No.179 of 2015 for partition, as the final decree proceedings are still pending, I deem it fit to give one more opportunity to the petitioners/ defendants to contest the original suit. Accordingly, CRP No.2928 of 2019 is dismissed. 22. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the nature of original suit in OS No.179 of 2015 for partition, as the final decree proceedings are still pending, I deem it fit to give one more opportunity to the petitioners/ defendants to contest the original suit. Accordingly, the delay of 482 days in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree dated 31.07.2017 is allowed conditionally on heavy terms. The petitioners/defendants shall file an application under Order-IX, Rule-13 CPC along with written statement and shall pay a cost of Rs.20,000/- to the plaintiff on or before 30.03.2022. However, if the defendants fail either to file an application under Order-IX, Rule-13 CPC along with their written statement or to pay costs of Rs.20,000/- to the plaintiff on or before 30.03.2022, CRP No.2934 of 2019 stands dismissed. 24. On the defendant filing such an application under Order-IX, Rule-13 CPC along with written statement and on paying the costs of Rs.20,000/- to the plaintiff on or before 30.03.2022, the trial Court shall consider the same, receive the written statement and proceed with in accordance with law for disposal of the original suit. 25. Subject to above condition, CRP No.2134 of 2019 is allowed. As indicated above, since Section 5 of Limitation Petition is filed, the CRP No.2928 of 2019 is dismissed. It is needless to mention that if the defendants fail to comply any of the conditions, as mentioned above, CRP No.2134 of 2019 shall stand dismissed without any further orders. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.