HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.5212 of 2012 Date: January 24, 2014 Between:
Sri P. Nageswara Rao … Petitioner And Smt. Marath Jayanthi and others … Respondents Order:
Heard both sides.
This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 19.07.2012 passed in I.A.No.429 of 2012 in an un-numbered A.S., by the Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam rejecting the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking to condone the delay in filing the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 09.08.2010 passed in O.S.No.1186 of 2005 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam.
The suit filed by the petitioner herein for declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of the suit schedule property is dismissed by judgment and decree dated 09.08.2010. As against the same, he preferred appeal before the first appellate Court. As there was delay of 478 days in filing the appeal, he filed application – I.A.No.429 of 2012 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking to condone the delay. In the affidavit filed in support of the I.A., it is stated that after taking certified copy of the judgment, the petitioner went to his native village in connection with acquisition disputes of his ancestral property and as he was pursuing the said disputes, he could not approach his counsel and file the appeal in time. The Court below, by the impugned order, dismissed the I.A. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition.
It is represented that, in an identical matter, when I.A., filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay was dismissed, he filed revision petition vide C.R.P.No.5250 of 2012 and this Court by order dated 11.06.2012 allowed the same.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the order dated 11.06.2012 passed in C.R.P.No.5250 of 2012.
In view of the specific averments mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.429 of 2012 filed by the petitioner, that immediately after taking certified copy of the judgment of the lower appellate Court, he went to his native village to pursue acquisition disputes of his ancestral property and therefore could not contact his counsel in time, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case to give an opportunity to the petitioner to contest the claim on merits.
For the aforesaid reasons, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order dated 19.07.2012 passed in I.A.No.429 of 2012 in an un-numbered A.S., of the year 2012, is hereby set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.429 of 2012 stands allowed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this C.R.P., stand closed. No order as to costs.
R.SUBHASH REDDY, J January 24, 2014 MRR