IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3645 of 2009 Between: The State of A.P., rep., by the Collector, Srikakulam & others. ..... Petitioners AND Gudla Venkatara Murthy & Others. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: AGP for Arbitration Counsel for the respondents: Sri N. Pramod The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3645 of 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed against order dated 04.06.2009 in I.A.No.564 of 2008 in O.S.No.122 of 1994 on the file of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam. I have heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Arbitration and Sri N. Pramod, learned counsel for the respondents. The respondents have filed O.S.No.122 of 1994 for grant of exgratia in respect of the lands taken possession by the petitioners. The suit was decreed on 27.09.2005. The petitioners have filed a review petition with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short “the Act”) for condonation of delay of 1150 days in filing the review petition. This application having been dismissed, the petitioners filed the present revision petition feeling aggrieved by the same. At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Arbitration has contended that the petitioners have assigned convincing reasons for condonation of delay and that the Court below has failed to properly exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by rejecting the application without assigning proper reasons. Learned counsel for the respondents have opposed this contention and stated that since the delay is huge, the burden is heavy on the petitioners to explain each and every day’s delay to the satisfaction of the Court. In the affidavit filed in support of their application, the petitioners have stated that after disposal of the suit on 27.09.2005, they have filed I.A.No.455 of 2007 under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) for correction of the judgment and that the said application was filed within the prescribed limitation, but the Court below, while dismissing the said application as not maintainable, observed that filing of review is an appropriate remedy for the petitioners. It is further stated that when the petitioners consulted the Government Pleader at Srikakulam and also of High Court for filing an appeal or review, the latter has advised to file review and that in that process the delay of 1150 days occurred. The Court below, while declining to condone the delay, has observed that under Section 5 of the Act, the petitioners have to explain day to day delay and that they have not properly explained the abnormal delay of 1150 days in filing the application. In my opinion, the Court below has not properly applied the parameters of law in considering the application for condonation of delay. While it is no doubt true that the burden lies heavily on the person, who seeks condonation of delay, to explain the delay by offering convincing reasons, at the same time, the Courts have to exhibit a somewhat liberal approach in considering the explanation rather than displaying a pedantic approach. Even though the delay is huge, the petitioners have come out with a plausible explanation by stating that within the prescribed time they have filed an application under Section 152 CPC for correction of the judgment and that the same was dismissed with liberty to them to file a review petition. The petitioners also stated that they have consulted the Government Pleaders both at Srikakulam and also at Hyderabad and that in that process the delay was caused. Having regard to the above facts and the fact that the petitioners are the State and its officers they are entitled to a little attitude as held by the Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another vs. Mst. Katiji and others[1] and the Court below ought to have condoned the delay by giving an opportunity to the petitioners to pursue the review petition. The learned counsel for the respondents stated that though the land was taken by the petitioners in the year 1984, his clients have not received any amount whatsoever and that further pendency of the proceedings would cause irreparable injury to their interest. I find some force in this submission of the learned counsel. Admittedly, the petitioners are entitled to exgratia amount. The dispute pertains only to the quantum of exgratia payable to the petitioners. This Court has called upon the learned Assistant Government Pleader to report on the amount admittedly payable to the respondents. On instructions, the learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that a sum of Rs.2,24,336/- is payable to the respondents as per the stand of the petitioners. Having regard to the facts of this case, it is appropriate if the delay is condoned, subject to the petitioners depositing the abovementioned sum towards the admitted amount without prejudice to the right of the respondents to support the decree already granted in their favour. Accordingly, it is ordered. On such deposit, which shall be made within four weeks from today, the respondents shall be permitted to withdraw the same. Withdrawal of the amount by the respondents shall not be treated as an act of waiver on their part in claiming the balance sum payable under the decree, subject to the result of the pending review petition. On deposit of the said amount, the review petition shall be numbered and within three months thereafter the same shall be disposed of by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam. Subject to the above direction, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the Civil Revision Petition in the manner indicated above, CRPMP No.5036 of 2009 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 04.02.2011 ES [1] AIR 1987 Supreme Court 1353