HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1215 OF 2010 Dated 31-12-2010 Between: Rekha Patel and another. …Petitioners. And: P.Venkateswara Rao and others. …Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1215 OF 2010 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. On 30-12-2010, when the matter was called, there was no representation from the respondents even though the matter was posted under the caption “For Dismissal”. Even today, when the matter is called, none appeared for the respondents. This Court therefore proceeded to dispose of the C.R.P. on merits. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the orders passed on 29-12-2009 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar in I.A.No.1702 of 2009 in C.M.A. SR. No.3958 of 2009. There was some delay in filing C.M.A. by the Revision Petitioners. The C.M.A. is against the order of dismissal of I.A.No.1647 of 2008 which was filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. seeking temporary prohibitory injunction. It was submitted by the Revision Petitioners before the learned District Judge that trial Court’s order in I.A.No.1647 of 2008 was pronounced on 26-11-2008 but they received certified copy of the order in the said I.A. in January, 2009 and thereafter, they contacted their counsel and the papers for filing C.M.A. were made ready but unfortunately, the petitioner’s brother died on 02- 02-2009 in a road accident in Ahemadabad in the State of Gujarat and the revision petitioners had to rush to Ahmadabad and consequently, this delay of 33 days has occurred in filing the C.M.A. All these facts have been set out in the additional affidavit filed by the revision petitioners. However, the learned District Judge found from the records that in fact, the petitioners applied for certified copy of the order on 04-02-2009 though the order in injunction petition was pronounced on 26-11-2008 and they received copy on 9-2-2009. It is observed that there is no explanation from the revision petitioners for the delay in applying the certified copies. According to the learned District Judge, the delay actually occurred is more than two months but not 33 days as mentioned by the petitioners in their affidavit. The learned District Judge took a view that the petitioners failed to make out a sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing the C.M.A. and accordingly, dismissed the I.A.No.1702 of 2009. It is true that in the petitions, seeking condonation of each day’s delay has to be explained. But the apex Court in a catena of judgments has laid down that as far as practicable, the Courts have to enable the parties to contest their cases on merits and this Court can refuse to condone the delay only when it is inordinate and is in the nature of causing prejudice to the rights of the opposite party. In my view the District Judge had indulged in meticulous examination of the grounds urged by the revision petitioners in support of their petition seeking condonation of delay. Such a meticulous examination in my view is not required. The delay of more than two months cannot be said to be inordinate delay. Might be out of mistake, the revision petitioners mentioned that the delay of 33 days had occurred. I am therefore of the considered view that the learned District Judge ought to have allowed the I.A.No.1702 of 2009 seeking condonation of delay in filing C.M.A. For the foregoing reasons, the order passed by the District Judge is therefore liable to be set aside. For the reasons aforementioned, the order dated 29-12-2009 passed by the District Judge is set aside and the delay occasioned in filing C.M.A. is condoned and consequently, I.A.No.1702 of 2009 is allowed. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. __________________________ Justice R.KANTHA RAO Dated 31-12-2010 Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1215 OF 2010 Dated 31-12-2010