THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition Nos.5472 & 5660 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: These two revisions are connected with each other. Hence, they are being disposed of through a common order. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as arrayed in C.R.P.No.5472 of 2010. The 1st respondent filed I.P.No.4 of 2006 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur, with a prayer to declare the 4th respondent as insolvent and to take steps to bring the properties held by her, to sale. It was alleged that the 4th respondent borrowed a sum of Rs.16,500/- from him on 16.12.2002, with interest at 24%, per annum, and in spite of repeated demands, he did not repay the amounts. He further alleged that the 4th respondent has executed three sale deeds on 23.05.2005 in favour of respondents 2, 3 and the petitioner herein to keep them away from the proceedings. The petitioner and other respondents contested the I.P. They pleaded that the sale took place, much before the institution of the I.P. and they were not aware of the loan transaction. The trial Court decreed the I.P., through order, dated 27.08.2007. An Official Receiver was appointed; the sale deeds were set aside and the 4th respondent was given one year time to discharge her debts, and in default, the Official Receiver i.e. the 5th respondent was directed to take further steps, vis-à-vis the lands covered by the sale deeds. It appears that the 4th respondent did not take any steps. An item of property, which has been purchased by the petitioner, was brought to sale. The 6th respondent has emerged as successful bidder and a sale deed was executed in his favour. At that stage, the petitioner presented an appeal before the Court of Principal District Judge, Kurnool. Since there was delay of 432 days in presenting the appeal, he filed I.A.No.2190 of 2008 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The application was opposed mainly by the 6th respondent. Through order, dated 26.08.2010, the lower Appellate Court dismissed the I.A. Challenging the same, C.R.P.No.5472 of 2010 is filed. The proposed insolvent i.e. the 4th respondent, has also presented an appeal and I.A.No.1584 of 2008, with a prayer to condone the delay of 299 days. That application was also dismissed through a separate order on the same day. C.R.P.No.5660 of 2010 is filed against the said order. Heard Ms.K.Pallavi, and Sri R.Ramanjaneyulu, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri C.B.Ram Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the 6th respondent. The petitioner is the purchaser of an item of property from the person who was later on declared as insolvent. It is stated that he is none other than the son-in-law of the insolvent. The trial Court did not accept the plea of the petitioner that the purchase was bona fide and that he was not aware of the loan transaction between respondents 1 to 4. The petitioner presented the appeal with a delay of 432 days. Viewed in isolation, it certainly appears to be enormous. However, on a close analysis of the facts of the case, a different picture emerges. While setting aside the sale deeds in favour of the petitioner, the trial Court directed the 4th respondent i.e. insolvent, to clear the debts within a period of one year. The petitioner contends that the 4th respondent made him to believe that the debts would be cleared within the stipulated time. If the debts were to be cleared within that time, the petitioner would not have any cause of action or concern as such. His interests would have been protected. Therefore, he genuinely waited with the hope that the debts would be cleared by the 4th respondent. It is only at the fag end of the time stipulated by the trial Court that the property was brought to sale. For all practical purposes, the petitioner was justified in waiting for lapse of one year. If that period, together with the one prescribed as limitation and the period that is taken for obtaining the certified copy of the order are excluded, the delay would be hardly few months, if not days. The efforts made by the petitioner to secure his interests that accrued to him under sale deed, which was set aside for no fault of him, cannot be thwarted. It hardly needs any mention that an appeal is continuation of suit and that relief can be granted only when the party remained indifferent. It cannot be said that the petitioner was negligent in pursuing the remedies. Further, there would not be any immediate threat for enjoyment and possession of the 6th respondent over the property. The rights of the parties have to be decided only at the final hearing of the appeal. Hence, the C.R.P.No.5472 of 2010 is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.2190 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Kurnool, is allowed and the delay in presentation of the appeal is condoned. Though the grounds urged by the 6th respondent i.e. the petitioner in C.R.P.No.5660 of 2010 are a bit different, the fact remains that once the decree passed in the I.P. is the subject matter of an appeal, the person, who is actually declared as insolvent, deserves to be extended the same relief. Hence, C.R.P.No.5660 of 2010 is also allowed and the order under revision is set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.1584 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Kurnool, is allowed, and the delay in presentation of the appeal is condoned. The lower Appellate Court shall number the appeals, if they are otherwise in order, and dispose of them as early as possible. It is directed that the 6th respondent shall be entitled to enjoy the property during the pendency of the appeal, but he shall not alienate or substantially modify the nature thereof. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.04.03.2011. GJ