THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P.No. 4235 of 2010 Dated. 25–02-2011 Between: Medi Kumari. …Petitioner Vs. Gandumeni Lakshmi …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P.No. 4235 of 2010 ORAL ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri V.L.N.G.K. Murthy and Sri M. Sudheer Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent. This revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the CPC’) is directed against the order dated 28-04- 2010 allowing I.A.No. 75 of 2010 preferred by the respondent herein in A.S.No. 82 of 2004 on the file of the learned VII-Additional District Judge, Kakinada. I.ANo. 75 of 2010 was an application filed under Order-XXXXI Rule 3 (A) of the CPC and Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay of 2009 days in preferring cross- appeal against the judgment and decree passed against the respondent. The respondent herein who is also the respondent in A.S.No. 82 of 2004 claimed in the affidavit accompanying I.A.No. 75 of 2010 that while preparing for arguments in A.S.No. 82 of 2004, whose trial had already commenced, was informed by her counsel that she has to file a cross-appeal as the decree in the suit is beyond the scope of the issues framed by the trial Court. This application was opposed and contested by the revision petitioner. The Court below however allowed I.A.No. 75 of 2010 by recording the following reasons: Admittedly, the petitioner was being represented by an advocate before the trial Court as well as in the appellate Court. It was the duty of an advocate to appraise the judgment to his party. When the accused failed to appraise the judgment, the party would suffer irreparable loss. Some times, the advocates due to lack of knowledge or inadvertence, they could not have apprised the judgment to their parties in right perspective and whatever advise given by their advocates they would follow. In this instant case also there may be some laches on the part of the petitioner’s advocate in appraising the lower court judgment to enable the petitioner to file her cross-appeal in time. So, the professional ignorance or lack of knowledge of advocate would not cause any injustice to the party who got a better case to canvass the same before the trial Court as well as in appellate Court. In this instant case, I feel that the petitioner’s counsel has not properly appraised the judgment to the petitioner so that she could not file the cross-appeal in time. Therefore, the delay of 2009 days can be condoned even though the petitioner failed to explain the reasons of the delay for day to day. In the interest of justice, the delay of2009 days is condoned and the petition is allowed. None of the reasons recorded by the lower appellate Court for condoning the massive and unexplained delay of 2009 days in preferring cross-appeal against the decree and judgment of the trial Court are rational or justify the condonation of the abnormal delay. Neither ignorance of law of the respondent nor what is more curious ignorance of law of the learned counsel for the respondent is a germane ground for condonation of delay. For the aforesaid reasons, the order of the Court below is unsustainable and is accordingly set aside. I.A.No. 75 of 2010 preferred by the respondent stands dismissed. The revision petition is accordingly allowed but in the circumstances without costs. ___________________________ JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM Dated: 25-02-2011 Pvks/*