THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2050 of 2010 ORDER This revision is directed against an order passed in I.A.No. 08 of 2009 which is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 677 days in preferring appeal against the decree and judgment rendered by the Senior Civil Judge, Adilabad in OS No. 53 of 2004. The petitioner herein is the 4th defendant in the civil suit referred to supra which has been instituted by the 1st respondent herein and seeking to recover a sum of Rs.4,08,932/- towards the works executed by him. The 1st defendant in the suit is the Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by the District Collector, Adilabad and the 2nd defendant is the District Educational Officer, Adilabad while the 3rd defendant is the Dy. Executive Engineer, DPEP, Adilabad. The 4th defendant has been impleaded in his eo-nominee capacity. It is the case of the plaintiff that as per the directions of the 4th defendant who worked as the Dy. Executive Engineer at the relevant point of time of DPEP, Adilabad, he executed several works concerning the school building. The 2nd defendant – DEO, Adilabad contested the suit by filing a detailed written statement. It is stated in paragraph (4) of the said written statement that the entire construction works have been entrusted by him to the Dy.EE, DPEP, Adilabad and payment was made after verifying the measurement books as maintained by him. It was further pointed out that a total sum of Rs.12,15,813/- has been paid through various cheques. It is therefore clear that the 3rd respondent who has been entrusted with the task of getting the works executed has also been made available a sum of Rs.12,15,813/- by the District Educational Officer. Therefore, it is for the 3rd respondent to render an account for this Rs.12,15,813/- received by him from the District Educational Officer on account of execution of various civil works. The 3rd defendant – Dy EE, DPEP, Adilabad, has failed to satisfactorily explain as to how the amounts received by him from the DEO, Adilabad have been expended. The 4th defendant, against whom the decree is passed sought to prefer an appeal against the decree and judgment rendered by the Senior Civil Judge, Adilabad, in OS No. 53 of 2004. But, however, there was delay of 677 days in preferring the same. The delay was sought to be explained by pointing out that he has been transferred from out of Adilabad and he was posted at Bodhan, of Nizamabad district and consequently he has not kept track of the development of the proceedings. He was under the bona fide impression that the successor officer of the office of the Dy EE, DPEP, will take care and protect his interest as well. Hence, he sought for condonation of delay. The said IA has been rejected by the learned District Judge, Adilabad on the ground that the explanation offered for condonation of such huge delay was not satisfactory. I have heard Sri Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ghanta Ramakrishna for the respondent-plaintiff. Sri Ramakrishna would oppose that there are no bona fides behind the litigation and it is purely speculative. But, however, after perusing the written statement submitted by the 2nd defendant – District Educational Officer in the civil suit, a doubt has arisen in my mind as to whether the Dy EE, DPEP, Adilabad, has properly contested the civil suit by explaining as to how the sum of Rs.12,15,813/- received by him from the District Educational Officer has been expended and in that process if the services of the plaintiff – 1st respondent herein have been utilized for executing some of the civil works, to demonstrate as to whether he has been paid properly or not. The 4th defendant therefore deserves an opportunity to be accorded in contesting the case. But, however, taking into account the fact that the 1st respondent – plaintiff herein is a small time and petty contract, I direct the petitioner – 4th defendant to deposit a sum of Rs.One lakh + costs awarded by the civil court on or before 30.9.2010 to the credit of the appeal preferred by him on the file of the learned District Judge, Adilabad. The plaintiff in suit OS No. 53 of 2004 who is the respondent in the said appeal should be permitted and allowed to withdraw the said sum of Rs.One lakh by furnishing an appropriate security to the satisfaction of the District Court, Adilabad. The deposit of the money by the 4th defendant – appellant and the receipt of the said money by the 1st respondent – plaintiff herein will abide by the result in the appeal. Apart from depositing this one lakh rupees, the petitioner will pay a sum of RS.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as costs in the IA to the 1st respondent – plaintiff through a crossed account payee cheque/pay order/demand draft, on or before 15.7.2010. Upon filing proof of payment of this one thousand rupees, the District Court, Adilabad, will number the unregistered appeal preferred by the petitioner herein duly condoning the delay of 677 days in presenting the appeal. If the petitioner herein fails to deposit or pay the plaintiff – decree holder sum of RS.1,000/- on or before 15.7.2010, the order passed in I No. 608 of 2009 by the learned District Judge, Adilabad on 31.12.2009 stands affirmed and the unregistered appeal preferred by him shall stand dismissed. If on the other hand, the petitioner herein deposits sum of RS.1,000/- or pays the same to the plaintiff on or before 15.7.2010, the appeal preferred by him shall be numbered and notice be issued therein to enable the plaintiff-decree holder to contest the same. However, if a sum of Rs.One lakh along with suit costs awarded by the civil court on or before 30.9.2010 to the credit of the said appeal, the said appeal shall stand dismissed without any reference to this court. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. ___________________________ JUSTICE N.RAMAMOHANA RAO June 15, 2010. knk