THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6315 of 2009 ORDER This revision is directed against the order of dismissal, dated 23.10.2009, passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali in I.A.No.1549 of 2007 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking to condone the delay of 1145 days in filing the appeal. 2. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein filed O.S.No.196 of 1999 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Tenali, against the petitioner-defendant No.8 and respondent Nos.5 to 11, for partition of the suit schedule properties. A preliminary decree was passed in the said suit on 01.09.2004. Subsequently, the plaintiffs therein filed I.A.No.50 of 2005 for passing of final decree. The said I.A. was allowed on 28.08.2006 and an Advocate Commissioner was appointed for partition of suit schedule properties into six equal shares and to put the plaintiffs in four such shares and to ascertain mesne profits from the date of suit. Stating that he came to know about passing of preliminary decree only after receipt of notice in I.A.No.50 of 2005, the petitioner filed the above said I.A. seeking to condone the delay of 1145 days in filing the appeal and the same was dismissed on 23.10.2009. Hence, this revision. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the purchaser of the property in question under a sale deed, dated 17.09.1980 and that he was not aware of passing of preliminary decree till the notice in final decree application was served. He contended that as the suit for partition was decreed ex parte, the trial Court ought to have condoned the delay in filing the appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that the petitioner was aware of passing of the preliminary decree from 2005 and he filed CRP.Nos.1815 and 1817 of 2008 before this Court. He further contended that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause for the delay and therefore, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the petition. 6. An ex parte preliminary decree was passed by the trial Court on 01.09.2004. Based on the same, respondent Nos.1 to 4- plaintiffs filed I.A.No.50 of 2005 for passing of final decree and the same was allowed on 28.08.2006. The ignorance pleaded by the petitioner about passing of preliminary decree till the date of receipt of notice in the final decree application cannot be accepted, because he filed the above CRPs before this Court questioning the order passed by the Court below in redirecting the Commissioner to ascertain the mesne profits. However, as this is a suit for partition and an ex parte preliminary decree was passed, the petitioner cannot be denied the statutory right of appeal though the delay is abnormal. For giving an opportunity to the petitioner, it would be appropriate to condone the delay by imposing costs. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, setting aside the order impugned. Consequently, I.A.No.1549 of 2007 is allowed on payment of costs of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees two thousand only) by the petitioner to the respondents, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date:18.02.2011 sj