THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3603 OF 2011 DT.23.9.2011 Between: Kasu Nagendramma … Petitioner And Kommareddy Thulasamma and ors … Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri B Narasimha Sharma Counsel for respondents : The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3603 OF 2011 ORDER: This revision is filed questioning the order dated 23.3.2011 in I.A. No. 1087 of 2010 in I.A. No. 973 of 2010 in A.S. No. 121 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal cum V Additional District Judge (FTC), Guntur, in dismissing an application filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 581 days in filing the petition to set aside the order of default passed in I.A. No. 973 of 2010. The petitioner herein is appellant in A.S. No. 121 of 2007 on the file of the V Additional District Judge (FTC) Guntur, which is filed against the orders passed in a suit in O.S. No. 196 of 1989 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur. The said appeal was dismissed for default on 4.9.2008 with costs and for restoration of the same, the appellant filed an application in I.A. No. 973 of 2008 and the same was also dismissed for default on 14.11.2008. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the present application under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay of 581 days in filing restoration petition to set aside the default order passed in I.A. No. 973 of 2008. On consideration of the matter, the lower Appellate Court, by order dated 23.3.2011 dismissed the said application and declined to condone the inordinate delay of 581 days on the ground that the petitioner has not explained the entire delay and the petitioner is not diligent and vigilant in prosecuting the matter. Hence, the present revision is filed. The learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner being an old lady is unaware of the legal affairs and has been residing with her daughter at Hyderabad for the last 1 ½ year and that her husband is also suffering from some eye problem and that she is unaware of dismissal of the appeal. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and perused the material available on record. The only ground sought to be explained for condonation of inordinate delay is that the petitioner being an old aged lady is unaware of the legal affairs and this Court is of the considered opinion that the said reasons are not sufficient for condonation of abnormal delay of 581 days, which cannot be accepted inasmuch as she is having husband and a son who can as well pursue the matter. In the absence of proper and sufficient explanation, the Court below has rightly declined to condone the delay of 581 days, which cannot be said to be an illegal or irregular order, warranting interference of this Court. The revision fails and accordingly the same is dismissed. No costs. ______________ V.ESWARAIAH,J DT.23.9.2011 TVK 230 THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3603 OF 2011 DT.23.9.2011