THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN C.R.P.No.311 OF 2009 DATE: 22-2-2010 Between: Sasapu Madhusudhanarao . … Petitioner And 1. Nulu Krishnaveni and 5 others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN C.R.P.No.311 OF 2009 ORDER: This revision is preferred against the order passed by the District Judge, Srikakulam in I.A.No.498 of 2008 in un-numbered A.S. of 2008 (GR No.1059 dt.18.2.2008) dated 1.11.2008. The petitioner herein filed O.S.No.148 of 2003 seeking permanent injunction against the respondents. The said suit was dismissed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam on 13.9.2007. The defendants in O.S.No.148 of 2008 had earlier filed a suit for partition in O.S.No.112 of 2003 which was decreed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge on the very same day i.e., on 13.9.2007 by way of a common judgment. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree in O.S.No.112 of 2003, the petitioner herein preferred A.S.No.140 of 2008 before this Court. On being advised that, against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.148 of 2008 dismissing his suit for permanent injunction, an appeal lay only before the District Court, Srikakulam and not before the High Court, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the District Judge and filed I.A.No.498 of 2008 to condone the delay of 127 days in filing the appeal. The Learned District Judge, however, dismissed the I.A. holding that, since a common judgment had been passed both in O.S.NO.112 of 2003 and O.S.No.148 of 2003, and the judgment in O.S.No.112 of 2003 was challenged before the High Court in A.S.No.140 of 2008, the petitioner could only file an appeal against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.148 of 2003 before the High Court and the appeal before the District Court was not maintainable. Aggrieved thereby the present revision petition. Sri V.Subrahmanyam, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would contend, rightly so, that against the judgment and decree in O.S.NO.148 of 2003 dismissing his suit for permanent injunction an appeal lies only before the District Judge and not to the High Court and that the Learned District Judge had erred in law in holding that the appeal filed before him was not maintainable. Sri D.Ramalinga Swamy, Learned Counsel for the respondents, while fairly stating that this was indeed the legal position, submits that since the Learned District Judge had dismissed the I.A. on the ground that the appeal was not maintainable, this Court should remand the matter back for his consideration as to whether or not the delay of 127 days should be condoned. The delay of 127 days, as has been explained in the affidavit filed in support of the I.A, is for the reason that the petitioner had preferred an appeal to the High Court against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.112 of 2003 and, since the judgment copy in the common judgment was filed in the High court, there was some delay on his part in approaching the District Court by way of appeal against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.148 of 2003. Instead of remanding the matter back to the Learned District Judge to decide as to whether the delay should condoned or not, I consider it appropriate to condone the delay of 127 days in preferring the appeal on condition that the petitioner herein pays Rs.2000/- as costs to respondent No1 within a period of three weeks from today. On submission of proof of costs having been paid, the Court below shall entertain the appeal on merits. The C.R.P. is allowed to the extent indicated above. ________________ 22-2-2010 Note: C.C. in three days B/o asp