THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3628 OF 2008 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is directed against the order, dated 02.05.2008, in I.A.No.443 of 2007 in unnumbered appeal, on the file of the District Judge, Chittoor, whereunder and whereby, the petition, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, (for short, “the Act”) filed by the petitioner/defendant to condone the delay of 121 days in filing the Appeal Suit, was dismissed. 2. Heard. 3. On 09.04.2007, O.S.No.959 of 2005 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor, filed by the respondent/plaintiff, was decreed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/defendant preferred an appeal. There was a delay of 121 days in filing the appeal. Therefore, he filed a petition to condone the delay of 121 days in filing the appeal. The reason given by the petitioner for the delay is that from 02.05.2007 to 30.10.2007, as he was suffering from viral fever and arthritis, and that he was taking treatment from Dr. P. Vijaya Kumar, Orthopaedic Surgeon, Chittoor. That petition was dismissed on the ground that no documentary evidence was produced by the petitioner herein to show that he was taking treatment with the above said doctor during the above said period. 4. The word 'sufficient cause' used in Section 5 of the Act has not been defined under the Act. But, it must mean a cause which is beyond the control of the party invoking the aid of said provision. For any justifiable cause, if a person is prevented from approaching the Court, then it can be said to be a sufficient cause. 5. No doubt, the petitioner has not filed any document to show that he was bed ridden and unable to move from the hospital from 02.05.2007 to 30.10.2007. But, a sworn affidavit was filed by the petitioner to show that he was suffering from viral fever and arthritis. If a person is suffering from fever and arthritis, it would certainly disable such person in approaching the Court to file the appeal. Therefore, the delay of 121 days in filing the appeal has been properly explained by the petitioner for the reason that he was taking treatment from the said doctor during the said period. But, to safeguard the interest of both the parties, delay can be condoned on payment of half of the decretal amount together with costs and interest. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of setting aside the impugned order, dated 02.05.2008, in I.A.No.443 of 2007 in the unnumbered appeal, on the file of the District Judge, Chittoor, and remitting the matter to the appellate Court, to number the appeal after the petitioner depositing half of the decretal amount together with costs and interest, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the delay petition filed by the petitioner shall stand dismissed and the appeal shall stand rejected. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J September 30, 2010 MD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3628 OF 2008 Between: C. Krishnaiah .....PETITIONER AND P. Lokanadha Reddy @ Lokanadha ....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3628 OF 2008 September 30, 2010