HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.82 OF 2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur in I.A.No.2 of 2010 in I.P.No.54 of 2007, dated 04.12.2010, in dismissing the application filed, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 39 days in filing the restoration petition for restoration of the above I.P. I.P.No.54 of 2007 was filed by the petitioner to declare him as an insolvent. When the matter was posted to 16.09.2009 for his evidence on payment of costs of Rs.100/-, neither he nor his counsel appeared nor did they pay costs resulting in the I.P. being dismissed for default. The petitioner, thereafter, filed an application to condone the delay of 39 days in filing an application to restore the aforesaid I.P. The Court below disbelieved the petitioner’s contention that he suffered from jaundice and was taking ayurvedic medicine and held that, since each day’s delay was not explained, there was no justification in interfering with the matter. Aggrieved thereby, the present revision. Heard Sri Goalla Seshadri, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Sri E.Radha Krishna, Learned Counsel for the first respondent. While Sri Goalla Seshadri, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the delay is negligible and that the Court below ought to have condoned the delay, Sri E.Radha Krishna, Learned Counsel for the first respondent, would draw attention of this Court to an earlier order of this Court passed in CRP.No.5193 of 2010, which was filed against the order of the Junior Civil Judge, Rayadurg, Anantapur in E.P.No.39 of 2009 in O.S.No.25 of 2003 dated 12.08.2010, wherein this Court, by order dated 12.11.2010, granted interim stay subject to the condition of the petitioner herein depositing 50% of the decreetal amount together with costs and interest within a period of eight weeks from that day failing which stay shall stand vacated without further reference to the Court. Learned Counsel would state that the petitioner had failed to comply with the aforesaid interim order of this Court. The order in CRP.No.5193 of 2010 has no direct bearing on the present revision except that the petitioner is common. Be that as it may the delay, according to the petitioner, is 39 days, and according to the Court below, is 60 days. The delay is not so inordinate that it ought not to be condoned even on terms. I consider it appropriate, therefore, to direct that the delay of 39 or 60 days, as the case may be in filing the application for restoration of the I.P., be condoned on condition that the petitioner herein deposits Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) to the credit of the I.P. within a period of three weeks from today. In default, the order of the Court below shall stand revived. In case the petitioner deposits the aforesaid amount within the stipulated period of three weeks, the first respondent shall be permitted to withdraw the same without furnishing security. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Date:15.07.2011 Usd