THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.4968 and 5014 of 2007 COMMON ORDER: Petitioner in C.R.P.No.4968 of 2007 had filed an application in I.A.No.15 of 1993 in I.P.No.10 of 1988 before the Insolvency Court for a declaration that Ac.17.33 cents covered by Survey Nos.309, 311 and 315 of Dondavaka Village of Tuni sub-registry does not belong to the insolvent but infact belongs to the petitioner and his wife. The wife of the petitioner also made similar application, which is subject matter of connected C.R.P.No.5014 of 2007. Since the affidavit in question seeking condonation of delay was filed by the petitioner in C.R.P.No.4968 of 2007 is common in both the revision petitions, both the civil revision petitions are being disposed of by this common order. Petitioner states that the said application in I.A.No.15 of 1993 filed by him and I.A.No.43 of 1993 filed by his wife were rejected by the Insolvency Court and the appeals are required to be filed against the said orders. Petitioner further states that he obtained certified copies of the rejection orders on 20.04.2005 and entrusted the matter to his counsel at the High Court, as he was advised that appeal lies before the High Court. It is however stated by the petitioner in the affidavit that in October 2005, he came to know from his counsel at the High Court that appeal is required to be filed before the District Court. Accordingly, petitioner states that he has entrusted the matter for the purpose of filing appeal to an advocate at Rajahmundry by name Mr.Johnbob in the second week of October 2005. Thereafter, petitioner came to know in July 2006 that appeals were not filed and the said advocate also unfortunately died on 08.05.2006 and therefore bundle was taken from the clerk of the said advocate and entrusted to the present counsel on file resulting in delay of 344 days in filing the appeals. Similar condonation of delay application was also filed by the wife of the petitioner and both the said applications were rejected by the learned III Additional District Judge, Kakinada under separate impugned orders, which are the subject matters of these two revision petitions. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent in both the civil revision petitions. It is no doubt true that the delay caused from second week of October 2005 when the petitioner claims to have entrusted the papers for filing appeal to the counsel at Rajahmundry till the filing of the present application in July 2006 is not properly explained in the affidavit. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was under the impression that the appeal must have been filed as requisite amount was paid to the counsel in the second week of October 2005 itself. It is note worthy to mention that the affidavit specifically mentions the name of the counsel and the clerk of the counsel, who were entrusted with the papers for filing of appeals and there is specific averment that requisite amount for that purpose was paid to that advocate and he had promised to file the appeal. The counter filed by the respondent, i.e., the Official Receiver does not specifically deny these averments and except saying a general statement that affidavit is a cock and bull story, there was no specific denial on behalf of the respondents. In the course of normal dealings between the counsel and the party, what is stated by the petitioner in the affidavit is quite probable. The court below, however, has taken a very stringent and strict view rather than adopting a liberal view particularly in view of the fact that valuable lands admeasuring Ac.17.33 cents belonging to the petitioner and his wife are in dispute. An opportunity was therefore warranted to be given, however, the petitioner also is not totally diligent and throwing out a substantial cause on grounds of circumstantial delay would not serve interest of justice. I am of the view that petitioner can be allowed to agitate the cause ventilated by him subject to payment of costs. The impugned orders are accordingly set aside and civil revision petitions are allowed. The condonation of delay sought for in these impugned applications shall stand allowed subject to the condition of petitioner in each of these petitions deposits a sum of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only) each to the credit of the I.P.No.10 of 1988 before the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada within a period of four weeks from today. On such compliance, the lower Appellate Court shall take up and decide A.S.(SR) No.5324 and 5323 of 2006 respectively in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR, J. 7th June 2011. Rns.