IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEL PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH C.R.P. No.6453 of 2006 Between: Bade Krishnaveni and another … Petitioners and Y.Gopala Rao and others … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH C.R.P. No.6453 of 2006 ORDER: This revision petition has been filed aggrieved by the order dated 06.06.2006 passed in I.A. No.139 of 2006 in I.A. No.121 of 1989 in O.S. (CF.No.2773 of 1988) by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore. Brief facts of the case are that the revision petitioners herein are the plaintiffs filed suit in O.S. (CF) No.2773 of 1988 for specific performance of an agreement of sale executed by the defendant. The said suit was filed on 12.08.1988. Initially, there was an order passed by the Court, even before numbering the suit, to deposit an amount of Rs.2,48,500/- but subsequently, on 25.04.1989 the said order was modified to that of to deposit an amount of Rs.40,167/-. Thereafter, several proceedings have been taken place, including the C.R.P. Nos.477 and 478 of 1993 that have been filed by the revision petitioners before this Court aggrieved by the refusal order passed to condone the delay of 480 days in filing the petitioner for setting aside the abatement and to bring the legal representatives on record wherein, this Court by order dated 07.11.2001 allowed the said revision petitions. While so, an application in I.A. No.139 of 2006 under Section 148 CPC, seeking to enlarge time to deposit a sum of Rs.40,167/-, has been filed by the revision petitioners. In filing that petition, there is delay of 6104 days. The Court below on 06.06.2006 dismissed the said application holding that the delay is not explained properly. Assailing the same, the revision petitioners filed the present revision petition. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners submits that the Court below did not consider any of the averments made in the affidavit, filed in support of the I.A. No.139 of 2006, which is in detail. Therefore, the impugned order is illegal and the same is liable to be set aside. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that there is inordinate delay of 6104 days in filing the petition to condone the delay. Therefore, the Court below had rightly dismissed the application. Therefore, no interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is required. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material on record. From a perusal of the record, it is apparent that the facts, which are narrated in the affidavit, are goes to show that the delay is explained but the Court below did not consider the same but passed an order dismissing the application. Prima facie, it does not contain any reason in dismissing the application except mentioning the days of delay. Therefore, though it is a docket order but not reasoned order, what all the Court below held is that the delay is unreasonable and unexplained properly, without considering the averments made in the affidavit, filed in support of I.A. No.139 of 2006. In that view of the matter, I deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and to remit the matter to the Court below for reconsideration. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, impugned order dated 06.06.2006 passed in I.A. No.139 of 2006 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Court below to reconsider and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after issuing notice to both the parties. However, it is made clear that the Court below shall not be influenced with the observations, if any, made in this order. With the above observations, this revision petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 29.06.2011 LSK