THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4635 OF 2006 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is directed against the order, dated 30.01.2006, in I.A.No.68 of 2005 in unnumbered appeal, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Guntur, whereunder and whereby, the petition, filed to condone the delay of 970 days in preferring the appeal against the Judgment in O.S.No.22 of 1992, on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, was dismissed on the ground that it cannot be believed that the petitioner was under an impression that one appeal has to be filed against the common judgment and decree in two suits viz., O.S.Nos.22 of 1992 and 488 of 1990 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur; that when an appeal was filed against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.488 of 1990, the concerned advocate must have informed the petitioner to prefer an appeal in O.S.No.22 of 1992 also, and that even, otherwise, ignorance of law cannot be excused. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondents. 3. There was delay of 970 days in preferring the appeal against the Judgment in O.S.No.22 of 1992, on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur. The reason given by the petitioner is that O.S.No.22 of 1992 and O.S.No.488 of 1990 were clubbed and a common judgment was pronounced; that against the said judgment in O.S.No.488 of 1990, he filed an appeal, but, in respect of the judgment in O.S.No.22 of 1992, he did not prefer any appeal, because his counsel has not properly advised him; that he came to know about it subsequently and therefore, the delay is neither wanton nor willful. 4. The word ‘sufficient cause’ is not defined under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. But, it must mean a cause, which is beyond the control of the party invoking the aid of said provision. A common judgment was pronounced in the two suits, and against the decree and judgment in one suit only the petitioner has preferred an appeal. The petitioner appears to have been under the impression that one appeal is sufficient against both the suits, which were disposed of under a common judgment. It seems that the petitioner might not have been properly advised by his counsel to file a separate appeal against the judgment in O.S.No.22 of 1992 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, also. Therefore, he has not filed any appeal against the decree and judgment in O.S.No.22 of 1992. So, in view of the fact that the substantial rights of the parties are involved, the appellate Court ought to have condoned the delay. Even, otherwise, the delay has been satisfactorily explained. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order, dated 30.01.2006, in I.A.No.68 of 2005 in unnumbered appeal, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Guntur. The delay of 970 days in preferring the appeal against the Judgment in O.S.No.22 of 1992, on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, is condoned. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J November 19, 2010 MD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4635 OF 2006 Between: Battula Venkata Ramanamma .....PETITIONER AND Pasupulati Venkata Ramana Rao and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4635 OF 2006 November 19, 2010