THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO C.R.P.NO.5480 OF 2002 ORDER Being aggrieved by the order dated 27-08- 2001 in I.A.No.55 of 2001 in O.S.No.33 of 1997 on the ﬁle of the Junior Civil Judge, Shadnagar, the present civil revision petition is filed. The petitioner herein is the plaintiﬀ in O.S.No.33 of 1997. He ﬁled the suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession and mandatory injunction with regard to the land in Sy.No.416 admeasuring Ac.1-00 situated at Mogiligidda Village, Faruqnagar Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District. On dismissal of the petition ﬁled by him under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the petitioner ﬁled the present civil revision petition on the ground that there are bona ﬁdes in ﬁling the petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act with a delay of 449 days and he explained the delay before the trial Court, but the trial Court erroneously passed the impugned order dismissing the petition. It is the contention of the revision petitioner that the counsel on record appearing for the revision petitioner went abroad (USA) and therefore, the petitioner could not contact him and thereby, the suit was dismissed for default and there are no laches on his part in not prosecuting the matter. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents while opposing the said contention supported the impugned order. Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the trial Court is sustainable. Admittedly, the suit was ﬁled in the year 1997 and the defendants ﬁled written statement and issues were also framed. As seen from the docket postings, the suit was adjourned from time to time in between 16-11-1998 to 28-10-1999 by granting 11 adjournments to adduce evidence on behalf of the plaintiff. In the aﬃdavit ﬁled by the petitioner, no where he mentioned when his counsel left to USA and when he returned back to India and when he collected the record from the father of his counsel. Further, he did not mention as to on what date he came to know about the dismissal of the suit to condone the delay of 449 days. The petitioner shall invariably explain the day-to- day delay in ﬁling the petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. As seen from the impugned order, it appears no where the petitioner make out any case and the date on which he learnt about the dismissal of the order. The trial Court well discussed the material on record and came to the correct conclusion while dismissing the petition. The conduct of the petitioner is self-explanatory as per the docket proceeding noted in the impugned order. Therefore, in any view of the matter, I see no grounds to diﬀer with the ﬁndings of the trial Court. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. _______________ K.S.APPA RAO,J rkk Dated: 11-11-2011