THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH C.R.P.NO.3657 OF 2006 O R D E R Heard both the counsel. 2. Aggrieved by the order and decree dated 3.3.2006 passed by the court of IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry in I.A.No.663/2005 in O.S.No.840/1999 in refusing to condone the delay of 244 days in filing the petition to set aside the default order dated 22.7.2004, the plaintiffs in the suit filed the present revision. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as the first petitioner was suffering from hypertension and arthritis and she underwent treatment from October, 2003, she cold not attend the court and the suit is filed for declaration and for recovery of possession and for consequential injunction. He submitted that the court below dismissed the delay condone petition on the ground that the petitioner no.1 has not produced medical certificate in support of her case. He stated that on the same day another petition under Order 9 Rule 9 of C.P.C. was filed for setting aside the default order dated 22.7.2004 and in the said petition, the medical certificate was filed and the court below without considering the said document, dismissed the I.A. and had the court below considered the medical certificate, the order would have been different. With these submissions, he sought to set aside the impugned order and condone the delay. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants supporting the impugned order, submitted that the petitioners failed to explain the day to day delay and as the petitioners failed to file any medical certificate in the Section 5 of Limitation Act, petition, the court below rightly dismissed the I.A. and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and hence the revision may be dismissed. 5. From the material available on record, it could be seen that the suit is filed for declaration of title, recovery of possession and for consequential injunction and the case is coming up for leading evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs. In the impugned order, the court below has found that the petitioner no.1 has not filed any medical certificate in support of her case that she suffered from the ailments. The case of the petitioner is that inadvertently her counsel filed the medical certificate in the petition filed under Order 9 Rule 9 of C.P.C. petition and, therefore, the court below could not consider the said medical certificate. The counsel for the petitioner has also produced a copy of the medical certificate filed before the court below in the connected I.A. filed under Order 9 Rule 9 of C.P.C. Further, the respondents/defendants also did not file any counter to the delay condone petition. 6. In these circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, as the court below had no opportunity to consider the medical certificate filed by the petitioner no.1, who is aged about 72 years, the impugned order is set aside and the revision is disposed of remitting the matter to the court below to pass orders afresh on I.A.No.663/2005 in O.S.No.840/1999, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after giving opportunity to both the parties. No costs. AVS ------------------------------------- 08—12—2009