THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.4794 of 2011 Date:19th December, 2011 Between: Chimmani Pedda Chowdappa S/o.C.Pullanna ..... Petitioner AND 1.Chimmani Veera Lakshumma W/o.Pedda Pullanna & Anr. .....Respondents *** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.4794 of 2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 30.09.2011, passed in I.A.No.1427 of 2009 in an un-numbered Appeal Suit on the file of II Additional District Judge, Kadapa, at Proddatur, whereby and whereunder, the learned Additional District Judge refused to condone the delay of 1065 days in filing the appeal against the judgment and decree, dated 07.12.2006, passed in O.S.No.115 of 2004 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur. 2. The petitioner is the first defendant and the 1st respondent is the plaintiff in O.S.No.115 of 2004 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur. The plaintiff filed the suit for cancellation of the sale deed executed by her in favour of the defendants. The suit ended in decree on 07.12.2006. The defendants received the certified copy of the judgment and decree on 12.01.2007. The 1st defendant filed an appeal assailing the judgment and decree, dated 07.12.2006, passed in O.S.No.115 of 2004 along with delay condonation petition being I.A.No.1427 of 2009 before the learned II Additional District Judge, Proddatur. In the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation petition, it is stated that the appellant/1st defendant left his village and went to Cheerala for eking out his livelihood and returned to his village Moragudi recently and came to know the result of the suit and thereby delay of 1065 days occurred in filling the appeal. The plaintiff filed counter opposing the delay condonation petition. She specifically pleaded in the counter that the petitioner/1st defendant, to defeat decree and judgment, intentionally executed a gift deed in favour of his minor son by appointing his wife Lakshmi Devi as the guardian and his conduct of executing the gift deed subsequent to the decree amounts to disobedience of the judgment and decree. Para.7 of the counter needs to be noted and it is thus: “7. It is submitted that as per the decree and judgment of the Hon’ble lower court the registered sale deed 26.08.2003 said to have been executed by this respondent in favour of petitioner and respondent No.2 stood cancelled and unless the higher court set aside the same the petitioner or the respondent No.2 has no any semblance of right over the same. It is submitted that the petitioner after coming to know of the said judgment and filing of this petition on 27.11.2009 executed a registered gift deed in favour of his minor son by appointing his wife Lakshmi Devi is the guardian to his son and the said contention of the petitioner is crystal clear that he is not having any respect about the order of the court and the same is disobedience of the order of the Hon’ble court and he is punishable under law and this respondent is reserved her right to take separate steps against the petitioner.” On considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, the learned Additional District Judge refused to condone the delay of 1065 days in filing the appeal, by order dated 30.09.2011, passed in I.A.No.1427 of 2009. Hence, this revision by the petitioner/1st defendant with the prayer stated supra. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/1st defendant and learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner left his village to eke out his livelihood and after three years of the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.115, he returned to his village and came to know of the result of the suit and therefore, there are no willful laches on the part of the petitioner in not filing the appeal within time. 5. I have gone through the counter filed by the 1st respondent/plaintiff resisting the application moved by the petitioner to condone the delay. In the counter, the plaintiff specifically pleaded that the petitioner/1st defendant is aware of the decree and judgment passed in O.S.No.115 of 2004 and that he received the certified copy of the judgment and decree on 12.01.2007. In a way the 1st respondent/plaintiff specifically denied of the petitioner/1st defendant being not available in the village. The petitioern/1st defendant has not placed on record any material to show that he left his village to eke out his livelihood and returned to the village after three years of the decree and judgment. In the absence of any material to substantiate the plea of the petitioner/1st defendant, the trial Court is justified in refusing to condone the delay of 1065 days in filing the appeal. I do not see any illegality or irregularly in the order impugned in the revision warranting interference of this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:19th December, 2011. cs THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.4794 of 2011 Date:19th December, 2011