THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR Dated this the 11th day of March, 2010. Civil Revision Petition No. 3620 of2008. Between: M.Harinadha Reddy and 2 others. ……Petitioners. Vs. C.Munemma and 6 others. …….Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR Civil Revision Petition No. 3620 of2008. ORDER: Though the matter is listed under interlocutory caption, as both the counsel agreed, the main C.R.P. itself is disposed of. This revision is directed against the order dt. 11.6.2008 of the learned District Judge, Chittoor dismissing the petitioner’s application I.A.No. 478 of 2007 filed seeking for condonation of delay of 70 days in filing the regular appeal. The petitioner is the plaintiff who lost the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. He could not file the appeal in time. The affidavit of the 1st petitioner filed in support of the application I.A.No. 478 of 2007 states that the petitioner was suffering from severe jaundice and therefore he could not contact his counsel and that the 2nd petitioner was away to Tirupathi and he could not also contact the counsel and in that process, there was a delay of 70 days in filing the appeal. The learned District Judge by holding that the dates and particulars of the period during which the petitioner was suffering from severe jaundice is not stated in the affidavit and no medical certificate is filed in support of the said submission and therefore not being satisfied with the bona fides of the petitioner, dismissed the application. Questioning the said order, the present revision is filed. The learned Counsel for the petitioners points out that the medical certificate dt. 30.12.2007 was in fact handed over by the petitioner to his counsel before the trial court and the said certificate shows that petitioner was suffering from acute hepatitis with severe anaemia and he was under the treatment of the doctor who issued the said certificate and he was advised to take complete bed rest from 21.10.2007 to 29.12.2007. The learned Counsel for the petitioners states that on account of the mistake of the counsel who appeared for the petitioners before the trial court, the said certificate was not filed and could not be seen by the learned District Judge. However, the said certificate is filed along with this CRP. In the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view of the fact that the valuable rights of the petitioners would be affected, I am of the opinion that the order of the learned District Judge dismissing the application for condonation of delay is too pedantic and he could have adopted a liberal approach particularly as the illness claimed by the petitioner was not seriously controverted either before the trial court or before this Court. Accordingly, the revision is allowed. I.A.No. 478 of 2007 filed before the learned District Judge, Chittoor stands allowed and the appeal shall be proceeded, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR,J 11.03.2010. krb. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR Civil Revision Petition No. 3620 of2008. Dt. 11.03.2010.