THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5931 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner filed O.S.No.126 of 2006 in the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool against the respondents for the relief of declaration of title and perpetual injunction. The suit was dismissed after trial on 31.03.2008. The petitioner presented an appeal before the Court of the Principal District Judge, Kurnool. There was a delay of 230 days in presentation of the same. Hence, I.A.No.233 of 2009 was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The petitioner pleaded that he obtained the certified copy of the judgment and decree within time, but could not present the appeal immediately on account of the fact that his mother-in- law, by name Ameena Bee was suffering from Cancer and he was busy in attending to her treatment at hospital. He stated that Ameena Bee died in October, 2008 and the appeal was presented shortly thereafter. The application was opposed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 by filing a counter-affidavit. They denied the facts pleaded by the petitioner and stated that they were invented for the purpose of the application. Through its order, dated 04.08.2010, the lower appellate Court dismissed the I.A. Hence, this revision. Heard Sri Subrahmanyam Kurella, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.V.Rama Rao, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri S.Surya Prakash Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.4. The reasons pleaded by the petitioner for delay in presentation of the appeal is that his mother-in-law was suffering from Cancer and he had to attend to her for treatment. The fact that the mother-in-law of the petitioner was ill and that she died in October, 2008 is not in dispute. On account of the stiff resistance offered by respondent Nos.1 to 3, the lower appellate Court had examined each and every aspect meticulously. The I.A. was decided almost as a suit. Though nothing is mentioned in the appendix of evidence, it appears that at one stage of the proceedings, the Manager of a private hospital was summoned. An aggrieved party would never sleep over the matter wantonly. It is only on account of the circumstances beyond their control that they would approach the Court at a belated stage. It is only the persons who are fully involved in or dedicated for the litigation that would pursue the proceedings meticulously. A citizen would have to attend to his daily and routine necessities of not only himself, but also his kith and kin and prosecution of proceedings would not be a top priority for many. The delay involved in this case is 230 days and it cannot be said that respondent Nos.1 to 3 would suffer any irreparable loss in case the delay is condoned. The inconvenience caused to them can be compensated by awarding costs. Hence, the civil revision petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. I.A.No.233 of 2009 is allowed on payment of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) as costs to the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3, within a period of four weeks from today. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:20.04.2011 kdl