HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.4378 of 2009 Date: March 5, 2010 Between: Chitla Srinivas Reddy, S/o. Narsi Reddy, Aged about 48 years, Occ: private service, R/o.Nellutla village, Lingala Ghanpur Revenue Mandal, Warangal District … Petitioner And Chitla Raji Reddy, S/o.Seetharam Reddy, Aged about 73 years, Occ: Retd. RTC employee, R/o.Nellutla village, Lingala Ghanpur Revenue Mandal, Warangal District, and ten others … Respondents Order: This civil revision petition, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is filed aggrieved by order dated 06-12- 2008, passed in I.A.No.974 of 2008 in A.S.Sr.No.3074 of 2008, by the learned Principal District Judge, Warangal. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.22 of 2005, on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon. The said suit, which is filed for partition and separate possession, claiming 1/10th share in the suit schedule property, was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 24-08-2007. As against the same, the petitioner filed first appeal, before the learned Principal Disrict Judge, Warangal, along with an application, in I.A.No.974 of 2008, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 208 days in filing the appeal. The said application is dismissed by the impugned order. Hence, the present revision petition. In the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.974 of 2008, it is stated by the petitioner herein that as he was suffering from Tuberculosis, he could not file the appeal in time. In support of his case, the petitioner filed medical certificates issued by one Dr. P. Karunakar Raju. Along with medical certificates, he has also filed certain medical investigation reports, medical bills etc. The lower appellate Court, only on the ground that other documentary evidence filed along with medical certificates is posterior to the medical certificates, rejected the said I.A. I have perused a copy of the order dated 06-12-2008 passed in I.A.No.974 of 2008 by the first appellate court. I find no valid reason in rejecting the I.A. filed by the petitioner. It is to be noted that the petitioner, in support of his plea that he was suffering from Tuberculosis, at the relevant point of time, has filed certain medical certificates and apart from those certificates, he has also filed medical investigation reports etc. The reason assigned by the first appellate court, namely, that other documentary evidence, apart from the medical certificates, is subsequent to the medical certificates, could not have been a valid reason in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for condoning the delay in filing the first appeal. Taking into account totality of the circumstances and in view of the averments made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.974 of 2008, the ground urged by the petitioner for cause of delay in filing the first appeal, in my considered opinion, appears plausible, within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay. For the foregoing reasons, the order under challenge, i.e. order dated 06-12-2008, passed in I.A.No.974 of 2008 in A.S.Sr.No.3074 of 2008, is set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.974 of 2008 stands allowed. Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. As much as it is stated that some of the respondents are senior citizens, I direct the first appellate Court to dispose of the first appeal as expeditiously as possible. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J March 5, 2010 MRR