HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4847 OF 2010 DATE:21-01-2011 BETWEEN Challagulla Ratna Manikyamma …Petitioner AND Boppana Seetharama Raju …Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4847 OF 2010 ORDER: This revision under Section 115 of C.P.C. is directed by the defendant against the orders of V Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court) at Vijayawada dismissing I.A.No.235 of 2008 in O.S.No.532 of 2005, dated 8.10.2010 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 488 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree passed on 9.12.2008. The plaintiff-respondent herein instituted the above suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.5 lakhs based on the promissory note, dated 12.11.2002. When the suit was posted for the cross- examination of plaintiff’s witness on 5.1.2007, the witness for the plaintiff could not be cross-examined for want of instructions from the petitioner-defendant. According to the petitioner, as there were disputes in her family, she along with her family members went to Hyderabad, that she sustained mental agony due to those disputes, sustained ill-health, that since January, 2007 she has been suffering with Spinal pain and the pain to her fingers and also with blood pressure. She underwent treatment at Hyderabad and as per the advice of the doctors to take bed-rest, she stayed at Hyderabad and therefore, she was unable to give instructions to her advocate which resulted in passing the ex parte decree on 9.12.2008. In support of her contention, she filed a medical certificate, dated 7.6.2008 to the effect that she underwent treatment for essential hypertension and backache from 1.1.2007 on out-patient basis. Even if the petitioner was subjected to backache and essential hypertension, they would not restrain her to approach the court and file an application within the time. Since the medical certificate produced by the petitioner does not indicate that she was completely bedridden and was unable to move, there is no reason to condone the delay and the lower Court accordingly dismissed the said I.A. The medical certificate produced by the petitioner is silent with regard to the nature of the treatment underwent by her. As per the certificate, she underwent treatment for essential hypertension and backache, which are normal for the persons, who are above the age of 50 years and that the same do not require such a long treatment. Further the doctor who issued the certificate was also not examined to elicit the fact that the petitioner was unable to move out from Hydreabad to prosecute the suit. It is also informed that in execution of the decree, property was put to sale and sale was also concluded and the matter is posted for confirmation of sale. Under those circumstances, the discretion exercised by the lower Court does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this Court. The revision is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. JANUARY 21, 2011 Tsr.