HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI Civil Revision Petition No. 5087 of 2009 Date: 30.10.2009 Between: S.K.Mallikarjuna … Petitioner And Koppala Govindappa … Respondent HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI Civil Revision Petition No. 5087 of 2009 ORDER: The revision petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.67 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Rayadurg, who suffered a money decree dated 31.03.2008. Against the said judgment and decree, he preferred an appeal in the Court of the District Judge, Ananthapur with a delay of 233 days. His application under Order 41 Rule 3-A of C.P.C. to condone the said delay of 233 days was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Ananthapur by order dated 05.10.2009. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another v. Mst. Katiji and others[1] contended that the Court below was not justified in dismissing the application to condone the delay. It is true that the Courts have held that the explanation offered for condonation of delay has to be construed liberally so as to advance substantial justice to the parties by deciding the lis on merits. However, it is also a well settled principle that the delay, particularly inordinate delay, cannot be condoned where the applicant fails to offer any explanation. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner i.e. Collector, Land Acquisition Anantnag’s case (1 supra) in which the Supreme Court was dealing with an application made by the State Government for condonation of delay and held that the treatment similar to any other litigant ought to be accorded even to the State Government, has no application at all to the facts in the case on hand. In the instant case, the delay was sought to be condoned only on the ground that the applicant was suffering with viral fever. However not even a medical certificate was produced to substantiate the said plea. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, the Court below had rightly declined to condone the delay. The discretion exercised by the Court below on proper application of mind to the facts and circumstances, warrants no interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section115 C.P.C. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. ___________ G. ROHINI, J. Date: 30.10.2009 KLP [1] AIR 1987 SC 1353