HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO C.R.P.No. 4560 of 2010 Date: 11-03-2011 Between: T. Ravi Kumar ……. Petitioner and P. Bojanathan and another ……… Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO C.R.P.No. 4560 of 2010 ORDER: Heard both sides and at their request the main Revision Petition itself is taken up for disposal. The petitioner herein, who is the plaintiff, seeks to assail the order, dated 11-08-2010 dismissing the application in I.A.No.1986 of 2009 in C.M.A.SR.No.8881 of 2009 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, which was filed under Sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 3189 days in filing the C.M.A. against the orders, dated 08-08-2010 passed in I.A.No.360 of 1991 in O.S.No.698 of 1983 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Briefly the facts of the case are that in the suit filed for specific performance on 21-04-1983, the respondents filed written statement on 09-02-1984. However the suit was dismissed on 19-03-1991. The petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.360 of 1991 for restoration of the suit and the same was dismissed for default on 29-10- 1991. Later on, he filed an application for restoration of I.A.No.360 of 1991 along with condone delay application in I.A.No.1558 of 1991. The said delay application was allowed and I.A.No.360 of 1991 was restored on 26-03-1993. However, subsequently, the said application in I.A.No.360 of 1991 was dismissed on 08-08-2000 on merits after hearing both sides. Instead of filing proper revision or other remedies, against the order dated 19-03-1991 in O.S.No.698 of 1983, the petitioner sought to file regular appeal in C.C.C.A.No.41 of 2001 on 29-09-2000 along with an application in C.M.P.No.21062 of 2000 to condone the delay of 3340 days. The said delay application was allowed on 23-02-2001 and, however, ultimately the main appeal in C.C.C.A.No.41 of 2001 was dismissed on 13-09-2006 on the ground that the same is not maintainable. The respondents filed eviction petition on 28-12-2006 in R.C.No.210 of 2006 and the summons were received by the petitioner on 06-01-2007. Thereafter, a revision was filed in C.R.P.SR.No.3448 of 2007 on 12-02-2007 against the order, dated 29-10-1991 in dismissing the application in I.A.No.360 of 1991. However, the said revision was withdrawn on 04-01-2008. Thereafter the eviction petition in R.C.No.210 of 2006 was allowed on 29-01-2008 and the petitioner has filed appeal in R.A.No.157 of 2000 on 02-05-2008. Subsequently, the petitioner chosen to file review application in C.C.C.A.M.P.No.593 of 2008 along with condone delay application in C.C.C.A.No.41 of 2001. The Appeal in R.A.No.157 of 2008 was dismissed on 19-12-2008. The review C.C.C.A.M.P.No.593 of 2008 was dismissed on 20-01-2009. The petitioner filed C.R.P.No.626 of 2009 against the order, dated 19-12-2008 in R.A.No.157 of 2008. Again the present appeal in C.M.A.SR.No.8881 of 2009 has been filed on 01-05-2009 along with condone delay application in I.A.No.1986 of 2009, seeking to set aside the order, dated 29-10-1991 in I.A.No.360 of 1991. Later on, the Revision Petition in C.R.P.No.626 of 2009 filed against the eviction proceedings was dismissed on 06-07-2009. By taking into account all these chequred events and especially the repeated delays on the part of the petitioner, the Court below did not find favour for showing any indulgence in favour of the petitioner and dismissed the application in I.A.No.1986 of 2009 on 11-08-2010. Hence, the Revision Petition. Having heard the learned counsel on either side and also on perusal of the material on record and especially in view of the delays which have occurred repeatedly and intermittedly in between various proceedings, the delay is totally unexplained nor any indulgence as such can be shown. In fact, if at all the petitioner has availed any wrong remedy, he could have been extended the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. But, however, having regard to the delays which have occurred in I.A.No.1558 of 1991 and in C.M.P.No.21062 of 2000 and again presently, and after exhausting all the remedies which are plausible, it cannot be said that Section 14 of the Limitation Act will have any application to the facts of this case. Necessarily this case falls under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Therefore, as rightly observed by the Court below, the petitioner has totally failed to make out any case much less sufficient one explaining the day-to-day delay. In the circumstances, having regard to the finding of fact and also in view of the utter failure on the part of the petitioner to make out any sufficient reason, I do not find any warrant to interfere with the order passed by the Court below. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ B. PRAKASH RAO, J Date: 11-03-2011 YCR