ORDER : G. Radha Rani, J. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners- defendant Nos.1 to 3, aggrieved by the order dated 12.06.2019 in I.A No.258 of 2016 in O.S No.32 of 2013 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon. 2. The respondents are the plaintiffs. 3. Originally the plaintiff by name Late Avula Malla Reddy filed a suit for cancellation of registered documents i.e., gift deed, cancellation deed, sale deed vide document Nos.4644 of 2012, 4645 of 2012 and 4648 of 2012 registered with the office of the Sub Registrar Jangaon, Warangal District against defendant Nos.1 to 3. The defendant No.1 was none other than the son of the plaintiff, the defendant No.2 was the grandson of the plaintiff i.e., son of his daughter and defendant No.3 was a third party. 3.1. The plaintiff contended that he was the owner of the land to an extent of Ac.6-10 guntas of Pembarty Revenue village, Jangaon Revenue Mandal, Warangal District. Out of love and affection, he gifted an extent of Ac.2-20 guntas to his granddaughter (daughter of daughter) and gifted Ac.1-20 guntas land in favour of defendant No.2( son of his daughter) through a registered gift settlement deed vide document No.6348 of 2009 dated 02.11.2009. The defendant No.1, i.e., his son in collusion with defendant No.3 played fraud upon him and on the promise that they were applying for old age pension obtained his thumb impressions on stamp papers, and got cancelled the gift settlement deed settled by him in favour of his grandson without his will and consent and got registered gift settlement deed in favour of defendant No.1 and defendant No.1 in turn executed a sale deed in favour of defendant No.3. The said documents were not executed out of his free will and consent. They were sham and bogus and obtained from him in an intoxicated condition by providing heavy liquor to him. When he questioned defendant No.1 as to why pension was not sanctioned to him, then the defendant No.1 disclosed about the same and beat him indiscriminately with a walking stick and the wife of the defendant No.1 (his daughter-in-law) also beat him all over the body and they abused him in filthy language, for that he approached the local police Jangaon but the police did not take any action. 4. 4. Subsequently, on the death of the plaintiff, the daughter of the plaintiff was brought as his legal representative and the defendant No.2 was transposed as plaintiff No.2. The defendant Nos.1 to 3 failed to file their written statements. As such, they were set ex-parte and an ex-parte order was passed on 18.11.2013. 5. Subsequently, the defendant Nos.1 to 3 filed an application to set aside the ex-parte decree and as there was a delay of (962) days in filing an application to set aside the ex-parte decree, filed an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act read with Section 151 of CPC to condone the delay. 6. The defendant No.1 filed an affidavit in support of the application stating that after the death of the plaintiff No.1 late Avula Malla Reddy, a panchayath was held before the caste and village elders on 11.07.2013 in which the daughter of the plaintiff i.e., A.Kamala accepted that she would withdraw the suit and a decision was passed by the elders on the same day and he along with the said A.Kamala had signed on the said decision. He was under the impression that A.Kamala had withdrawn the case and as such, had not attended the Court. Their previous counsel Sri A.Madhusudhan Reddy, who was a resident of Hanmakonda also had not informed about the case and passing of an ex-parte decree by the Court due to which they were kept in darkness. When A.Kamala approached the Tahsildar, Jangaon with an application to mutate her name in 1-B Pahani and Tahsildar issued a notice to D1, they came to know about the ex-parte decree and filed the application to set aside the same. Due to which, the delay of (962) days occurred and prayed to condone the delay in filing the petition to set aside the ex-parte decree dated 18.11.2014. 7. The respondents – plaintiffs filed their counter contending that the alleged resolution was brought into existence for the purpose of this application, the same was not having any evidentiary value in the eye of law. The petitioners could not blame their advocate as it was the duty of the parties to have consulted their advocates to follow the case proceedings. The filing of the application before the Tahsildar for mutation of their names was their look out and the petitioner could not insist them to file the same immediately after the decree. The petitioners could not blame their advocate as it was the duty of the parties to have consulted their advocates to follow the case proceedings. The filing of the application before the Tahsildar for mutation of their names was their look out and the petitioner could not insist them to file the same immediately after the decree. The petitioners – defendants had not explained the day to day delay. The delay of (962) days was abnormal and was not properly explained. It was a settled law that after appearance of the parties for non filing of written statement, if a decree was passed, the decree shall be treated as a contest decree and prayed to dismiss the petition. 8. The trial court on considering the contentions of both the learned counsel held that the reason assigned by the petitioner was not sufficient for condonation of delay. The petitioner had not properly explained the delay in filing the petition to set aside the ex-parte decree. The suit was in between the family members, as such, the petitioner stating that he was not having knowledge of the suit proceedings could not be condoned at a belated stage and dismissed the application. 9. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant Nos.1 and 3 preferred this revision. The revision petitioner No.1/defendant No.1 died during the pendency of the revision and the wife of the revision petitioner No.1 was brought on record as petitioner No.3 as per the orders in I.A No.03 of 2021 dated 06.12.2023. 10. Heard Sri D.V.Chalapathi Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri J. Kanakaiah, learned counsel for the respondents. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Court below ignored the resolution passed in the panchayath on 11.07.2013 and failed to appreciate the malafides of the respondents in proceeding further with the suit after agreeing to withdraw the suit in the panchayath and misled the Court and the parties with a false promise to withdraw the suit and proceeded with the suit behind their back. The Court below ought to have taken a liberal approach while condoning the delay, as per the law lay down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and filed a copy of the resolution passed by the panchayath on 11.07.2013, which was alleged to be filed by them before the trial Court along with the affidavit in I.A No.254 of 2016 but was not considered by the Court below. 11.1. He further relied upon the order of this Court passed in CRP No.527 of 2022 dated 20.09.2023 wherein a delay of (854) days in filing the petition for setting aside the ex-parte decree in a partition suit was condoned. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand contended that all the documents sought for cancellation were pertaining to the same date, they were executed on the same day i.e., on 20.06.2012. The same itself would show that the defendant No.1 in collusion with the defendant No.3 hatched a plan to get registration of the land in his favour and took the original plaintiff to the Registrar Office and obtained his thumb impressions on the stamp papers without his free will and consent and obtained the gift deed in favour of the D1. The cancellation of gift deed with regard to the property gifted to the present plaintiff No.2 and the sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.3 could not be on the same date. The respondents were denying her signatures on the resolution passed by the panchayath. As such, the same could not be considered as a valid document. No proper explanation was given by the revision petitioner explaining the delay in filing the petition. The petitioners received summons in the suit but failed to file their written statement. No written statement was filed by them even along with the petition filed to set aside the ex-parte decree to prove their bonafides and prayed to dismiss the revision. 13. Perused the record. 14. As seen from the record, the petitioners – defendant Nos.1 and 3 have received summons in the suit and also made their appearance through their counsel Sri A.Madhusudan Reddy but failed to file their written statement within the stipulated period. As such, the defendant Nos.1 and 3 were set exparte and an exparte decree was passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon on 18.11.2014. As such, the defendant Nos.1 and 3 were set exparte and an exparte decree was passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon on 18.11.2014. As such, the defendant Nos.1 and 3 were aware of the proceedings of the suit but had not filed the petition to set aside the exparte order passed against them till the disposal of the suit exparte against them on 18.11.2014. Their contention was that there was a panchayath conducted after the death of the plaintiff No.1 and in the said panchayat, the daughter of the plaintiff Smt A.Kamala accepted that she would withdraw the suit and signed on the said panchayat resolution before the elders along with the defendant No.1 on 11.07.2013. Learned counsel for the petitioners filed a copy of the said panchayat resolution. But however, the petitioners - defendant Nos.1 and 3 had not followed or even vigilant on that aspect to see that the case was withdrawn by the daughter of the plaintiff who was brought on record as the L.R of the plaintiff. Thus, the petitioners - defendant Nos.1 and 3 were not vigilant in prosecuting the matter either by filing their written statement or by seeing that the case was withdrawn by the daughter of the plaintiff as per the panchayat resolution stated by them to be passed on 11.07.2013. No reasons were given by the petitioners - defendant Nos.1 and 3 for not prosecuting the matter with due diligence on these aspects. 15. The other reason stated by the petitioners - defendant Nos.1 and 3 was that their counsel had not informed them about passing of the exparte decree on 18.11.2014 and they were kept in dark, and only after receipt of the notice issued by the Tahsildar, Jangaon in the application filed by the daughter of the plaintiff to mutate her name in the 1-B and Pahanies on 20.05.2016, they came to know about the passing of exparte decree. The petitioners - defendant Nos.1 and 3 cannot throw the blame on their counsel. They are expected to be vigilant and proactive in their own case. In Lala Mata Din Vs. A. Narayanan , AIR 1970 SC 1953 , the Hon’ble Apex Court stated that a mistake by counsel cannot be considered as a sufficient cause for condonation of delay and each case must be decided on its own facts. They are expected to be vigilant and proactive in their own case. In Lala Mata Din Vs. A. Narayanan , AIR 1970 SC 1953 , the Hon’ble Apex Court stated that a mistake by counsel cannot be considered as a sufficient cause for condonation of delay and each case must be decided on its own facts. The client is also equally responsible to pursue the matter with their counsel or in the Court. Nowadays the status of the cases are also available on the website of the Courts. Blaming the counsel for not informing the petitioners is not an appropriate ground for condoning the inordinate delay. It is well settled principle in matters of condonation of delay that the determination of what constitutes sufficient cause, cannot be governed by any inflexible rule but must be adjudicated by the Courts, based on the peculiar facts and circumstances surrounding each individual case. 16. Applying the above principle to the facts of the case, this Court is not satisfied that the petitioners have diligently pursued the matter with their counsel. 17. As no satisfactory explanation was given by the petitioners to consider it as a sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay of 962 days in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte decree dated 18.11.2014, this Court does not find that the order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon in dismissing the I.A No.258 of 2016 in O.S No.36 of 2013 was erroneous or passed exceeding its jurisdiction. 18. In the result, the CRP is dismissed confirming the order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon dated 12.06.2019 in I.A No.258 of 2016 in O.S No.32 of 2013. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.