IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND NINE CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2179 OF 2009 Between: Shaik Jabbarmiah … Petitioner/Appellant And: S. Parvathamma ….. Respondent. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2179 OF 2009 ORDER: This Court ordered notice before admission on 30.06.2009. Sri N.V.Anantha Krishna, learned counsel entered appearance on behalf of the respondent. Sri Govardhana Reddy, learned counsel, representing Sri B.Ranga Swamy, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner, had taken the Court to the contents of the order under challenge and would maintain, that the Court of first instance, instead of allowing the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, dismissed the application. Sri N.V. Anantha Krishna, learned counsel for the respondent also pointed out the ground raised in the Civil Revision Petition and had taken to the reasons recorded in the order under challenge and would maintain, that in the light of the same, for being condoned the delay, no proper explanation had been offered. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. Heard both sides. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the Revision Petitioner as against the order dated 19.2.2009 made in I.A.No.99 of 2008 in OS No.72 of 2006 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur, Kurnool district. The said application was filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963, to condone the delay of 582 days in filing the application to set aside the exparte decree passed on 24.8.2006. The learned Judge, at para 5 of the order, while dismissing the application, recorded the following reasons: “On perusing the pleadings of the petitioner and the counter filed by the respondent, this petitioner filed this petition after 582 days of passing the preliminary decree. Admittedly the petitioner received summons from the Court and he also stated that he approached number of times to respondent and he discharged the entire amount and the mortgage deed was not returned to him or cancelled by the respondent. The petitioner did not file any document or proof except oral contention of his affidavit to show that he approached and discharged the suit debt and the delay of 582 days is not properly explained. The petitioner failed to give proper reasons for day to day delay caused by him in filing the petition in time.” The trial court had given much consideration to the respective stand taken and the affidavit filed in support of the application and also the counter filed by the respondent and ultimately came to the conclusion that the delay had not been properly explained and dismissed the application. This court is of the considered opinion that there is no reason to interfere with the order under challenge. The Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed, and is, accordingly, dismissed at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. ___________________ Date:20.08.2009 P.S.NARAYANA,J Gk. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2179 OF 2009 ORDER: Date:20.08.2009 Gk.