THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3910 of 2011 DATED:30.9.2011 Between: Motem Kumaraswamy … Petitioner And Kadamanchi Yadagiri … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3910 OF 2011 ORDER: This civil revision petition is filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the plaintiff in the suit in O.S. No.92 of 2007 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, aggrieved by the order dt.2.7.2011, passed by the Principal District Judge, Warangal, in I.A. No.1037 of 2010 in A.S.S.R. No.2775 of 2010. The petitioner – plaintiff filed the suit in O.S. NO.92 of 2007 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, against the respondent – defendant for recovery of money of Rs.3,18,367/- basing on a promissory note. The said suit was decreed by the judgment and decree dt.26.2.2010. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent preferred an appeal before learned Principal District Judge, Warangal. As there was delay of 42 days in filing the appeal, the respondent filed I.A. No.1037 of 2010 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay. The said application was opposed by the petitioner herein stating that no bona fide reasons were shown by the respondent for the delay and the delay was not correctly calculated. By the impugned order, the lower appellate Court has allowed the application. Hence, the revision. In this revision, it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, that sufficient cause was not shown in the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of the delay and the lower appellate court without recording valid reasons has condoned the delay. A perusal of the affidavit filed, in support of the application for condonation of the delay, by the respondent herein before the lower appellate Court, indicates that he was not keeping good health during the relevant time. Further, it is to be noticed that the delay is only 42 days in filing the appeal, which is a substantive remedy provided to the respondent – defendant against the judgment and decreed passed in O.S. No.92 of 2007. In view of the reasons recorded by the lower appellate Court in the impugned order, it cannot be said that no valid reasons have been recorded by the lower appellate Court so as to interfere with the impugned order by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The civil revision petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 30.9.2011 bnr