THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1841 OF 2010 DATED:11.06.2010 Between: Nekkaraganti Venkata Ramana .. Petitioner And Jailipalli Subrahmanyam @ Babu Rao .. Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1841 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is a plaintiff in O.S.No.141 of 2001. He filed the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale in respect of a house situated in Eluru. The suit agreement was impounded as per the order of the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Eluru in I.A.No.467 of 2003 dated 03.04.2003. The agreement, dated 08.11.1996, was sent to the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Eluru, for impounding and levying stamp duty by an order dated 04.08.2003. The RDO directed to pay an amount of Rs.79,800/-. Aggrieved by the order of the RDO, the petitioner filed Writ Petition being W.P.No.20262 of 2003. The petitioner, however, did not obtain any order of stay of the suit. The suit was called for trial. On 14.11.2003 the suit was dismissed for default. Subsequently, by an order dated 26.04.2007, this Court allowed the Writ Petition setting aside the order of the RDO. Meanwhile, the petitioner filed I.A.No.1039 of 2005 under Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to set aside the order dismissing the suit for default, and as there was delay of 463 days in filing the said Interlocutory Application, he also filed I.A.No.1038 of 2005 to condone the delay. By impugned order, dated 04.12.2009, the I.A.No.1038 of 2005 having been dismissed, the petitioner filed the instant Civil Revision Petition. Counsel for the petitioner submits that as the agreement of sale dated 08.11.1996 is not impounded and is not properly stamped, the petitioner has not been able to enforce his right to specific performance. Therefore, when the same was impounded and excess stamp duty was levied, he availed the remedy of Writ Petition. During pendency of the Writ Petition, the suit was dismissed. Therefore, the Court below ought to have condoned the delay of 463 days. The submission of the counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. Dealing with this aspect of the matter, the Court below observed the following. Though the petitioner filed writ petition, he did not file any petition to stay further proceedings in the suit. Similarly even after dismissal of the suit on 14.11.2003 he did not take steps for disposal of the writ petition expeditiously. The petitioner has waited for more than one year three months and thereafter he filed the present application to condone the delay of 463 days in filing the restoration petition. The only reason assigned by him is that he was under the impression that the Writ would be disposed of as early as possible. Pendency of Writ Petition is not a bar to the petitioner to file a petition under Order IX Rule 9 CPC to set aside the default order and to restore the suit to file. Even according to the petitioner even by the date of filing of the present petition, the Writ Petition was not disposed of. The petitioner is a practicing advocate. He knew the consequences of not filing a petition within time. Though the petitioner filed this petition on 21.03.2005, he never pressed for disposal of this petition and allowed to lay the matter for more than 4 ½ years. Thus, it appears that the purpose of this petition is to keep the lis pending. If the petitioner was diligent he ought to have filed a petition immediately after dismissal of the suit or within 30 days. When the petitioner was aware that in the Writ Petition filed against the order of the RDO, there was no stay of suit, the petitioner ought to have prosecuted the suit or at least ought to have filed an application bringing to the notice of the Court below about the pendency of the Writ Petition, but it was not done. When the suit was dismissed for default on 14.11.2003, the petitioner filed the application after a period of more than one year three months. This itself would show that the petitioner was not diligent enough to prosecute the case properly nor he has shown sufficient cause for condoning the delay. In that view of the matter, this Court is convinced that the impugned order does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record nor results in miscarriage of justice. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) 11.06.2010 KH