HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO Civil Revision Petition No.288 of 1995 Date: 05-8-2011 Between A.Sankaramma … Petitioner/Plaintiff and A.Gangadhara and another … Respondents/Defendants HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO Civil Revision Petition No.288 of 1995 Order: The present civil revision petition is filed against the order and decree dated 25-11-1994 in I.A.No.24 of 1994 in A.S.No.112 of 1994 on the file of the District Judge, Anantapur. 2. The revision petitioner herein is respondent No.1-plaintiff, respondent No.1 is the petitioner-defendant No.1 and respondent No.2 is respondent No.2-defendant No.2 in I.A.No.24 of 1994 in A.S.No.112 of 1994. Respondent No.1 herein filed the said application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking to condone the delay of 162 days in preferring the appeal on the ground that he was suffering from heart trouble and also rheumatic arthritis and there was a delay. The same was opposed by the 1st respondent-plaintiff on the ground that the appeal ought not to have been entertained as the certified copies were filed after expiration of limitation period and the petitioner has no locus standi to file the application. After enquiry, the court below, while negating the contention of the 1st respondent-plaintiff, allowed the application condoning the delay. Being aggrieved, the present civil revision petition is filed. 3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner-plaintiff contended that the order of the court below is erroneous as the petitioner-defendant No.1 failed to prove the day-to-day delay, which is mandatory in an interlocutory application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking to condone the delay. 4. Now the point for consideration is – whether the order of the court below condoning the delay is sustainable ? 5. Point:- As seen from the impugned order, the 1st respondent-petitioner filed the application for condoning the delay of 162 days on the ground that he is unwell and he has taken treatment. In proof of the same, he also filed medical certificates. The Court below, while placing reliance on the provisions of Order XLI, Rule 3A(1) of C.P.C., condoned the delay while exercising the powers of the court. 6. For better appreciation, Order XLI, Rule 3A(1) of C.P.C., is extracted, which reads as follows: “When an appeal is presented after the expiry of the period of limitation specified therefore, it shall be accompanied by an application supported by affidavit setting forth the facts on which the appellant relies to satisfy the Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within such period.” 7. As seen from the aforesaid provision, the Court can condone the delay if the petitioner satisfies the court that there is sufficient cause in not preferring an appeal within period. The petitioner in his affidavit as well through medical certificates proved that he was suffering from heart trouble from 20-7-1993 to 07- 10-1993 and from rheumatic arthritis and viral hepatitis from 12-10- 1993 to 05-01-1994. The said certificates were not disputed by the revision petitioner. Having taken into consideration the aforesaid documentary evidence, the Court below found that the petitioner has made out sufficient cause to condone the delay and due to the ill- health, he could not prefer the appeal in time. 8. Therefore, having regard to the circumstances of the case and the documentary evidence filed by the 1st respondent-petitioner, I see no grounds to differ with the findings of the Court below as the Court below correctly allowed the interlocutory application to condone the delay placing reliance on the provisions of Order XLI, Rule 3A(1) of C.P.C., as the present revision is squarely falls under the ambit of the aforesaid provision. 9. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed confirming the impugned order passed by the Court below. No costs. ___________________ K.S.APPA RAO, J. 05th August, 2011. Ak HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO Civil Revision Petition No.288 of 1995 05th August, 2011. (Ak)