THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3669 OF 2011 DT.23.9.2011 Between: Chekka Chennaiah … Petitioner And Peddinti Venkateswarlu … Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri B Narasimha Sharma Counsel for respondent : The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3669 OF 2011 ORDER: This revision is filed questioning the order dated 19.7.2011 in I.A No. 4077 of 2010 in AS No.___ of 2010 on the file of the District Judge, Guntur dismissing the application to condone the delay of 590 days in preferring the appeal. The petitioner herein is plaintiff, he suffered a judgment and decree in a suit for specific performance in O.S. No. 440 of 2005 dated 4.12.2008 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli, Guntur district. He kept quiet for 590 days and thereafter filed an appeal with an application in I.A. No. 4077 of 2010 to condone the delay and the learned District Judge, Guntur, by order dated 19.7.2011 dismissed the said application on the ground that petitioner failed to show sufficient cause by following the judgment of the Apex Court in Lanka Venkateswarlu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh[1]. Hence, the present revision. The learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner on obtaining the certified copy of the judgment, immediately gave it to his counsel to file an appeal and his counsel represented to him that he has filed an appeal, in fact, which he has not filed and that 15 days prior to filing the subject application his counsel informed him that he could not file the appeal since the bundle was misplaced and that the jurisdiction to file the appeal, at present lies to the District Court, Guntur. That the petitioner is 71 years old and suffering with old age diseases and his sons are not cooperating with him and prays to condone the delay. He further placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in N.Balakrishnan Vs. M.Krishnamurthy[2]. Having heard the learned counsel for petitioner and on perusal of the material available on record, I am of the considered opinion that the application filed by the petitioner is bereft of any material particulars i.e., as to on what date he has obtained the certified copy; on what date he has handed over the certificate copy to his counsel to file an appeal; on what date his counsel informed that he has filed an appeal; on what date his counsel informed that the bundle is misplaced and the appeal jurisdiction does not lie with Sattenpalli Court and the same has to be filed before the District Court etc. The facts in N.Balakrishnan case (cited supra) relied on by the learned counsel for petitioner, are different and the same are not applicable to the present facts of the case, inasmuch as, in fact appropriate action has been initiated by the petitioner therein against the counsel concerned and in the present case even the name of the counsel who failed to file the appeal on behalf of the petitioner is not mentioned. In the absence of such material particulars, the learned District Judge has rightly declined to condone the abnormal delay of 590 days and the said order cannot be said to be illegal or irregular warranting interference of this Court. The revision fails and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. ______________ V.ESWARAIAH,J DT.23.9.2011 TVK THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3669 OF 2011 DT.23.9.2011 [1] 2011 (1) L.S. 175 [2] AIR 1998 SC 3222