THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2736 OF 2005 DATED:28.03.2011 Between: Vadla Sudershan. .... PETITIONER And The Deputy General Manager, Monitory Recovery & Rehabilitation Department, APSFC, Chirag Ali Lane, Hyderabad & another. .... RESPONDENTS ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 15.03.2005, in I.A.No.504 of 2004 in A.S.No.3 of 2003 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kamareddy, wherein the said application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 133 days in filing the petition to set aside the dismissal order, dated 21.06.2004, in A.S.No.3 of 2003, was dismissed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. Petitioner is the plaintiff. He filed the suit against the 2nd respondent-A.P.State Finance Corporation herein in O.S.No.97 of 1994 questioning the sale of property in public auction. According to the respondents, the petitioner-plaintiff obtained a loan in the year 1989 and failed to repay the debt. After following the procedure prescribed under A.P.State Finance Corporation Act, the defendant-Corporation seized the property and conducted public auction and sold the same and the sale was also confirmed in favour of a third party. The suit i.e. O.S.No.97 of 1994 filed by the petitioner questioning the said auction was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed A.S.No.3 of 2003. The petitioner did not prosecute the said appeal with diligence and the same was also dismissed for default on 21.06.2004. Long thereafter, the petitioner filed application for restoration of the appeal together with the application in I.A.No.504 of 2004 for condonation of delay of 133 days. The petitioner sought to explain the delay on the ground that he was not keeping good health during the period from 01.06.2004 to 05.11.2004 and in support of the same, he filed medical certificate said to have been issued by the Private Medical Practioner. The petitioner did not specify the disease with which he was suffering from nor his doctor who treated him is examined to show that the petitioner was suffering from any such disease that rendered him bed ridden. Even according to the petitioner, he was advised to take bed rest till 09.11.2004, but the application to condone the delay was filed on 02.12.2004 and the delay during the interregnum is also not explained. There is absolutely no reason as to why the appeal was not prosecuted with diligence, when the petitioner was admittedly represented by a counsel. The learned Senior Civil Judge has rightly refused to place any reliance on the medical certificate issued by the Private Medical Practioner and the finding that the delay of 133 days is not properly explained, being based on proper appreciation of the material on record, does not call for any interference by this Court. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity warranting any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 4. Learned Senior Civil Judge by the impugned order, dismissed the application on the ground that the delay has not been satisfactorily explained. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed and the plaintiff preferred the appeal. Unfortunately, the same was also dismissed as there was no diligent representation before the appellate Court. He seeks an opportunity to the petitioner to have the appeal disposed of on merits as the rights in the immovable property are involved. 6. In the circumstances, having regard to the fact that the delay is 133 days and the presence of the appellant at the time of hearing the appeal was not strictly required and the disposal of the appeal appearing to have been due to non-representation on behalf of the appellant, it is considered that an opportunity can be given to the petitioner to have the appeal disposed of on merits. The delay in filing the application for restoration of the appeal is therefore condoned on the petitioner paying costs of Rs.1000/- ( rupees one thousand only) to the respondent within a period of two weeks from today. In default of payment of costs, the impugned order stands confirmed. The learned Senior Civil Judge is directed to dispose of the same at an earlier date, preferably within a period of six months from the date of restoration of the appeal. 7. Accordingly, Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 28th March, 2011. Tsy