IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 278 AND 290 OF 2010 Between: Yarnala Pentayya. … Petitioner And Tellasula Suryaprakasarao and three others … Respondents This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 278 AND 290 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER:- These two revisions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, arising out of the same proceedings between the same parties, are taken up together for admission and hearing and are being disposed of by this common order. Petitioner/plaintiff instituted the suit-O.S.No.12 of 2001 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Prathipadu for specific performance of agreement of sale, dated 26.03.1996 allegedly executed by defendant No.1 and his mother. According to the plaintiff, the entire sale consideration has been paid and the plaintiff was delivered possession of the plaint schedule property and after alienating the plaint schedule property, defendant No.1 and his mother shifted to Bhadrachalam and, therefore, the sale deed could not be executed. While so, the alleged sale deed dated 29.11.2000 was executed by defendant Nos.1 to 3 in favour of defendant No.4. Hence the suit. When the suit was coming up for trial on 02.01.2007, as there was no representation on behalf of the plaintiff, the suit was dismissed for default. Further, the plaintiff came to know that defendant No.1 died after institution of the suit on 06.03.2001 leaving the defendants/proposed parties 5 and 6 as legal representatives. Therefore, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.91 of 2007 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 17 days in filing the petition to set aside the default order and also I.A.No.181 of 2008 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 2050 days in filing the L.R. Petition of deceased/defendant No.1. The trial court by the impugned order dated 26.11.2009 dismissed the I.A.No.91 of 2007 filed to condone the delay of 17 days in filing the petition to set aside the default order. Consequent to the same, I.A.No.181 of 2008 was also dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present two revisions have been filed. The only ground on which the trial court dismissed the I.A., appears to be that when the suit is coming up trial from 2002 onwards, the petitioner has been taking adjournments and therefore, the suit was dismissed for non appearance of the petitioner and his counsel and that the present I.A. is filed with false allegations, without any reason mentioned in the affidavit and the petitioner failed to explain the delay properly. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, petitioner clearly stated that his counsel is residing at Peddapuram and the petitioner is residing at Uttarakanchi village and as such he could not meet his counsel within time, though he was informed about the order of the Court, and hence, there was a delay of 17 days in filing the application. Having regard to the explanation offered by the petitioner, the trial court ought to have condoned the delay of 17 days in filing the petition to set aside the default order passed in the suit. In view of the same, the impugned order passed by the trial Court dismissing I.A.No.91 of 2007 is set aside and the delay of 17 days in filing the petition to set aside the default order is condoned. Consequently, the order passed in I.A.No.181 of 2008 is also set aside and the same is allowed. Accordingly, the civil revision petitions are allowed. No costs. __________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J 5th March 2010 lmv