HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.M.P.Nos.5362 of 2007 & 2197 of 2009 AND CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6201 of 2010 DATE:31-12-2010 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6201 of 2010 BETWEEN Chintalapudi Samrajyam …Petitioner AND Sabbe Veera Raghavulu & Others. …Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.M.P.Nos.5362 of 2007 & 2197 of 2009 AND CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6201 of 2010 ORDER: Since the revision is considered on merits, notice is dispensed with in CRP.MP.Nos.5362 of 2007 filed for condoning the delay in filing the revision; and CRP.MP.No.2197 of 2009 filed to bring the legal representative of deceased first respondent on record. Both the CRP.MPs. are ordered. Heard the revision on merits. Petitioner-second plaintiff filed suit in O.S.No.92 of 1988 along with her husband (first plaintiff) seeking specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 25.3.1988 executed by the defendants 1 and 2 and their father late Bheemaiah in favour of the first plaintiff for Rs.6,000/- and to direct the defendants to execute a sale deed and in the alternative, to return Rs.29,600/- towards damages for breach of contract. On dismissal of the suit by judgment and decree, dated 11.4.1997, the petitioner along with her husband filed A.S.No.34 of 1999 before II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada and the same was dismissed for default on 16.10.2001. To restore the said appeal to its file, petitioner filed I.A. under Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C. and since there was delay of 1203 days in filing the restoration petition, the impugned I.A.No.1999 of 2005 was filed for condoning the delay of 1203 days stating that the appeal stood posted to 16.10.2001 for hearing but due to the family troubles, the first plaintiff (husband of the petitioner) could not meet his counsel and prosecute the appeal and the same was dismissed for default. Due to the family disturbances in the family, he was mentally upset and was not in a position to pursue the appeal, which caused the delay. The reasons so assigned hardly constitute sufficient cause for condoning the delay. In that view of the matter, the discretion exercised by the lower Court in dismissing the impugned I.A. does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this Court. The revision is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. DECEMBER 31, 2010 Tsr.