sHIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI C.R.P. No. 2372 OF 2010 Friday, the Eighteenth day of June, Two Thousand and Ten Between Smt. B.Kamalamma and others Petitioners AND Bollu Madhusudhan Respondent THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI C.R.P. NO. 2372 OF 2010 ORAL ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 CPC is filed by the petitioners in IA No. 249 of 2010, who are the appellants in ASSR No. 13721 of 2009 assailing the order dated 19.04.2010 passed by the learned I Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, dismissing the petition filed under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 448 days in filling the appeal. The petitioners herein are the appellants in the above appeal which assails the judgment and decree dated 7.8.2008 passed in OS No. 606 of 2006 by the learned III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. It is stated that on 22.10.2009, OS No. 124 of 2006 came to be dismissed by the learned XIII Addl. Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and the copy thereof was made ready on 5.12.2009 and, as such, the petitioners herein filed two appeals. In the meanwhile, the respondent herein filed EP No. 9 of 2009 in O.S. No. 606 of 2006. Thus, in the process of filing two appeals, there occurred a delay of 448 days in preferring appeal against the judgment and decree in OS No. 606 of 2006. The respondent herein opposed the petition contending that nothing is said about the delay in obtaining certified copies having nexus with OS No. 606 of 2006. It is also sought to be contended that neither new facts nor new documents have got legal entity in the appeal, which were not exhibited in the suit. The court below dismissed the petition observing that the delay that was caused in obtaining certified copies, is relatable to the documents intended to be filed in appeal as additional evidence and the question of filing of the documents as additional evidence, arises only after the appeal is registered. Observing so, since there was no plausible explanation for the delay, the petition was dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. It is not in dispute that the appeal before the lower appellate court arises out of a partition suit and the parties belong to the same family. Learned counsel for the respondent has no objection in condoning the delay. Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside and the court below is directed to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari June 18, 2010 MAS