HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5901 OF 2011 Date: 20-12-2011 Between: Andugula Jayamma. - - - Petitioner/Defendant. And Harin Adhi Lakshmi. - - - Respondent/Plaintiff. This Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5901 OF 2011 ORDER: Being aggrieved by the order dated 31-12-2007, passed in I.A. No.1992 of 2006 in unnumbered Appeal Suit on the file of Principal District Judge, Srikakulam, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 2. The petitioner herein is the defendant and respondent herein is the plaintiff in O.S. No.367 of 2002 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed before the lower Court. 3. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was prosecuting C.R.P. before this Court and she has rural background and she is aged about 54 years. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner did not file medical certificate hence lower Court is justified in dismissing the application to condone the delay. 4. The brief facts of the case are as follows : the respondent herein filed a suit in O.S. No.367 of 2002 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam. The petitioner herein is the defendant in the said suit, she was set exparte for non filing of her written statement. Then she filed I.A. No.1370 of 2002 to set aside the exparte decree order passed on 26-11-20002. However, the said application was dismissed on 23-01-2003 on the ground that the petitioner has not filed medical certificate in support of her contention that she was suffering from ill health. Thereafter the suit was posted for exparte evidence on 30-01-2003 and the suit was decreed after the plaintiff filed her chief-examination in affidavit. Then the petitioner herein preferred a Revision before this court in C.R.P. No.2831 of 2004 and this Court dismissed the said Revision on 29-07-2005 holding that it is always open to the petitioner to file an Appeal against the exparte decree, if so advised. However, the petitioner could not take steps and file an Appeal immediately, then the respondent herein who obtained a decree filed E.A. No.449 of 2006 seeking a direction to remove the part of the residential house portion of the petitioner from A.B.C.D. red marked portion in the plaint plan and deliver the vacant site to the respondent-decree holder. After filing the said petition, the petitioner filed an Appeal before the lower Court with a petition in I.A. No.1992 of 2006 to condone the delay of 253 days in preferring the said Appeal. The lower Court after considering the entire material and holding that even after filing of E.A. No.449 of 2006 by the respondent, the petitioner did not take steps immediately and therefore there are no merits in the petition and accordingly dismissed the said I.A. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed. 5. It has to be seen that the petitioner was prosecuting the matter before this Court in C.R.P. No.2831 of 2004. Of course, even after dismissal of that C.R.P. the petitioner herein did not file the Appeal immediately and hence the delay occurred. The petitioner is a woman aged about 54 years and appears to be a semi literate. The age, educational qualifications, socio-economic background and all the circumstances have to be taken into consideration. It is always better if the matters have been disposed of on merits, rather on technicalities. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. Delay stands condoned. Appellate Court to register the Appeal and dispose of the same in accordance with law. No order as to costs. _____________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J Date:20-12-2011. Dsh. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR 332 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5901 OF 2011 December, 20, 2011 DSH.