HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.R.P.NO.5650 OF 2010 DATE: 10.12.2010 BETWEEN: Vykuntam Muralidhara Rao v .. Petitioner And Shriram Chits Pvt.Ltd. and others ` .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.R.P.NO.5650 OF 2010 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and the respondent No.1. Since the question involved is regarding condonation of delay of 225 days in filing the appeal, the C.R.P. itself is taken up for hearing and is disposed of by the following order. A money decree was passed against the revision petitioner in O.S.No.11 of 2003 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram. Against the said decree and judgment dated 26.09.2006, the revision petitioner preferred an appeal and made an application in I.A.No.1767 of 2007 before the Principal District Judge, Vizianagaram to condone the delay of 225 days in filing the appeal. The grounds urged by the revision petitioner before the learned District Judge to condone the delay in filing the appeal are that at relevant time, his father expired and he also became sick and for these reasons he could not able to instruct his advocate at appropriate time to file the appeal. The petition filed by him under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was dismissed by the learned District Judge on the ground that no documentary proof was placed in proof of the same. Along with this revision petition, he filed death certificate of his father, who died on 16.11.2006 and he also filed medical certificate issued by Dr. V.Ganeshwara Rao at Salur which indicates that he was under the treatment of Dr. V.Ganeshwara Rao, who issued the certificate dated 26.10.2010 from 10.10.2006 to 01.07.2007. In any event, the learned District Judge ought not to have dismissed the petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act on a mere ground of documentary evidence being not produced before the Court and the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the petition. Due to the demise of the father of the revision petitioner, he might not have contacted the advocate to give instructions to file documents. Considering all aspects of the matter, I am of the view that the delay can be condoned by imposing some costs. For the foregoing reasons, the order dated 18.06.2010 in I.A.No.1767 of 2007 on the file of the District Judge, Vizianagaram is set aside and the delay of 225 days in filing the appeal by the revision petitioner is condoned on condition of paying Rs.200/- to the first respondent within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and he has to file memo in the lower court to that effect. Consequently, the civil revision petition is allowed. _______________ R.KANTHA RAO,J Dated: 10.12.2010 Kvrm HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.R.P.NO.5650 OF 2010 DATE: 10.12.2010