THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI C.R.P.NO.5040 OF 2008 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against an order dated 7- 11-2008 passed in I.A.No.3508 of 2008 in ASSR No.7926 of 2008 by the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. Revision petitioners herein are the defendants-appellants. Respondents herein are the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs filed suit being OS No.74 of 2000 for declaration and recovery of possession and the same was decreed on 21st September, 2007 directing the defendants to vacate the suit schedule property within 2 months, failing which, the plaintiffs are entitled to recover the same through process of law. Challenging the same, CCCA No.293 of 2007 was filed. The said CCCA No.293 of 2007 was returned by this Court on the premise that value of the appeal being Rs.4,87,500/- is less than Rs.5,00,000/- and as such, the same may be presented before the District Court, which is competent to entertain the appeal, on 29-04-2008. Thereafter, the defendants filed appeal in ASSR No.7920 of 2008 before the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad and as there is a delay in filing the same, I.A.No.3508 of 2008 was filed to condone the delay of 61 days, but the same was dismissed. Assailing the said order, the present revision is filed. Heard both sides. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that non-filing of the medical certificate before the lower appellate Court is not intentional and the Court below erred in not exercising the discretion for condoning the delay of 61 days. A perusal of the record goes to show that the suit was decreed on 21-09-2007 and CCCA No.293 of 2007 was filed before this Court, but the same was returned, on 29.04.2008, on the ground that the value of the subject matter is below Rs. 5,00,000/- and therefore, directed it to be present before the competent Court. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed EP for recovery of possession. After waiting for more than six months, the petitioners have filed the appeal before the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad with a delay of 61 days. The only ground on which the application for condoning the delay was filed is that due to ill-health of the first petitioner, the appeal could not be presented in time, but no evidence in support thereof is filed either before the Court below or this Court. It appears, the appeal is filed only after EP is filed with a plea that the first petitioner is un- well. There is no explanation as to why the appeal could not be filed before the EP is filed. Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, each day’s delay has to be explained. But in the circumstances of the case, the petitioner has not given any reason, much less cogent reason for condoning the delay of 61 days. No grounds are made out by the petitioners to maintain the revision. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed. ____________________________ JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI rkk Dated: 20-04-2010