THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.R.P.4639 OF 2010 ORDER: The revision is filed against the order of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in I.A.No.1260 of 2010 in A.S.S.R.No.19721 of 2010 to condone the delay of 2886 days in filing the appeal. The revision petitioners are the appellants and defendants in O.S.No.212 of 1995 on the file of the court of I Additional Rent Controller- cum-XIII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The suit was filed for declaration of title and injunction. The suit was decreed ex parte on 21-03-2002. The contention of the revision petitioners in para.4 of the petition affidavit is as under:- “it is further submitted, though the suit was decreed on 21-03- 2002 the same was not informed to me. Since I was attacked with Diabetes and T.B added to that I was also suffering form low back pain which made me immobile as such I was not in a position to move out and I was advised complete bed rest for two years. Hence the information with regard to the passing of the above decree in the said suit came to my knowledge in the month of November,2004 when I contacted my counsel. Then, with great difficulty though I was not in a position to move out, I collected the certified copies of the above said Judgment and Decree and when I enquired with my counsel he advised me to challenge the said judgment and decree by way of filing an appeal. Then, I was entrusted the said matter to my counsel and advised him to file appeal, but, due to my misfortune the disease with which I was suffering i.e., T.B of Lungs got aggravated and I was admitted in the hospital and my condition also became serious and what ever earnings I had got exhausted because of the treatment of the above said disease and I became financially weak and there was no source of income to me to maintain myself and my family, as such, I could not generate sufficient funds and also in the situation which I was in because of the above said disease, I could not meet my advocate nor could request him to file the above appeal. For four years I suffered with the above said diseases spending all most all my time in going round the hospitals and leaving on the mercy of well wishers and friends. I am indeed indebted to my doctors who have treated me but for their treatment I would not have been alive today. My disease is almost cured now and only recently for the past 3 months I am able to come out and attend to my avocations and by the grace of God I am improving slowly and doing petty business to maintain my family. I further submit that except the suit schedule property I have no other immovable property or landed property and even that is being occupied by the respondent illegally and without any manner of right and enjoying the fruits of it. I have spent huge amounts for my treatment only with the fond hope that the above said property will make me to stand on my legs without depending on others. Hence, though there is abnormal delay in filing the above appeal, I have no other alternative except to do so. The delay caused is neither wilful nor wanton but only to the reasons stated above and the delay is nearly about 2886 days in filing the above appeal.” The respondent filed a counter denying the allegations in the petition affidavit and contending that the alleged plea of the plaintiff that he was suffering from ill-health is not correct and the petitioner kept quite for a period of seven years and filed the present application. There are no particulars of the dates when he came about the decree and therefore the petition is liable to be dismissed. The learned Chief Judge after considering the rival contentions found no merits and dismissed the application. The point that arises for consideration is:- Whether the order of the learned Chief Judge is legal and sustainable? POINT:- According to the case of the first petitioner, as he was unwell and there is no knowledge about passing of the decree, the appeal could not be filed in time and the documents filed by him clearly shows about the ill-health and therefore when the rights in the immovable property are involved, which is just and necessary that the delay should be condoned. There is no dispute about the principle that generally the courts will be inclined to condone the delay in order to see that the judgment is delivered on merits and the rights of the parties are not affected. At the same time, it is expected by a party to the proceedings to be diligent in conducting the case and the reasons for delay should be proper and plausible. As can be seen from the claim of the first petitioner, he was said to be having some T.B and Diabeties but there is no record to show that at any time he was hospitalized and could not move from the bed or did not attend to his regular activities. It is difficult to believe that when the matter was posted for trial, the counsel for the petitioner would not have informed him. Even other wise the first petitioner was residing at Hyderabad only and the contention is that his property was illegally encroached and in such circumstances any litigant would be anxious to see what is the fate of the case and why it was not being proceeded with. The suit was evidently of the year 1995. The certificate produced by the first revision petitioner do not in any way show that by due diligence he could not have known about the fate of the suit. In fact as can be seen from the order of the Chief Judge, the certificates are said to be for granting of medical leave and the petition is silent as to where the petitioner was employed. Even if it is to be taken his description as businessman is to be true, still there is nothing to show that he did not conduct any business during that period. Therefore, from the merits of the facts, which was decided by the learned Judge is not a case where indulgence of the court should be shown for condoning the delay since the reasons are not convincing and there is no sufficient cause. Therefore, the civil revision petition is liable to be dismissed. The point is therefore answered. In the result the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. _______________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J 17-08-2011 TSNR