IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5037 of 2010 Between: K. Narsimha Chary .. Petitioner AND Kodati Madhava Rao & another .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5037 of 2010 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order in SR.No.2517 of 2010 in SR.No.1911 of 2010 in E.A.No.231 of 2008 in E.P.No.91 of 2007 in O.S.No.90 of 2003, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Nalgonda, dated 21.09.2010. 2. E.A.No.231 of 2008 was filed under Order XXI Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘C.P.C.’), by the revision petitioner claiming to be the purchaser in possession and enjoyment of the execution petition schedule property in E.P.No.91 of 2007 in O.S.No.90 of 2003. The said petition was dismissed for default on 26.03.2010. SR.No.1911 of 2010 was filed for restoration of E.A.No.231 of 2008. That was returned by the Executing Court for compliance with some objections and it was not represented within the time fixed by the Court. With a delay of 42 days, the same was represented along with SR No.2517 of 2010, filed under Section 148 C.P.C. The Advocate for the revision petitioner himself had sworn the affidavit in support of the petition stating that he had misplaced the file in his office and the delay was not intentional or due to negligence. 3. The Executing Court rejected the petition referring to the tendency of the revision petitioner to procrastinate the litigation at every stage by filing one petition or the other and observing that there were no valid reasons to condone the delay. 4. The revision petitioner claims herein that a request under Section 148 C.P.C. ought to have been considered liberally and the petition should have been allowed on terms. The observation about procrastination is incorrect and hence, he desired the impugned order to be reversed. 5. Heard Sri J. Prabhakar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri J. Suresh Babu, learned counsel for the first respondent and none entered appearance for the second respondent. 6. The merits of the rival claims in respect of the claim made in E.A.No.231 of 2008 or the request for restoration of E.A.No.231 of 2008 in SR.No.1911 of 2010 are not the subject matter of the present consideration. SR.No.1911 of 2010 and E.A.No.231 of 2008 will be decided by the Executing Court on their own merits. 7. The present consideration is confined only to SR.No.2517 of 2010. The affidavit in support of the petition was given by the Advocate himself who owned the blame for the delay of 42 days in representing the petition in SR.No.1911 of 2010 and any misplacement of the file in the office of the counsel cannot prejudice the rights and interests of the revision petitioner nor can the default of the counsel be laid at the door of the revision petitioner himself. The past conduct of the revision petitioner with reference to the execution proceedings cannot be a ground for refusing to consider the condonation of delay in representing the petition. What ought to have been considered was only the presence or absence of a sufficient cause for the delay of 42 days in representation and the time for representation having been fixed by the Court, the jurisdiction to extend the same under Section 148 C.P.C. ought to have been liberally exercised in order to arrive at a decision on merits, but not on any technical lapses on the part of the parties. 8. Any inconvenience caused to the first respondent/decree holder due to the delay can be compensated by imposition of appropriate terms and the refusal of the Executing Court to give an opportunity to the revision petitioner to represent SR.No.1911 of 2010 cannot, therefore, be justified. 9. Hence, the order, dated 21.09.2010, in SR.No.2517 of 2010 in SR.No.1911 of 2010 in E.A.No.231 of 2008 in E.P.No.91 of 2007 in O.S.No.90 of 2003, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Nalgonda, is set aside and the said SR.No.2517 of 2010 will be allowed on payment of costs of Rs.1,000/- by the revision petitioner to the counsel for the first respondent. As the costs are paid in open Court by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner to the learned counsel for the first respondent, SR.No.2517 of 2010 is allowed and SR.No.1911 of 2010 shall be dealt with by the Executing Court in accordance with law. 10. The Civil Revision Petition is ordered, accordingly, without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 11th February, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5037 of 2010 Date: 11th February, 2011 KL