IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.949 of 2008 Between: Muddana Krishna Murthy ..... PETITIONER AND Parmandi Shyam Sundara Rao and 6 others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.949 of 2008 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 08.03.2007 made in I.A.No.823/2002 in A.S.No.121/1990 on the file of the IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Sec.5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 2688 days in filing the petition for setting aside the dismissal order dated 22.12.1994 in A.S.121/1990. It is the case of the petitioner that as against the dismissal order dated 22.12.1994 in A.S.121/1990 an application was filed on 23.01.1995 for restoration of appeal and the same was returned with an objection with regard to limitation aspect. On 18.07.1995 the said petition for restoration of appeal was re-presented along with a separate application for condonation of delay of 5 months and 20 days in re-presenting the said petition. The delay condonation petition was numbered as I.A.811/1995 and on 22.09.1995 the said I.A.811/1995 was dismissed as there was no representation on behalf of petitioner. Thereafter, the counsel for the petitioner did not take any steps either for restoration of appeal or for restoration of delay condonation petition. It is stated that the petitioner was not aware of the proceedings till May 2002 and therefore the petitioner filed I.A.823/2002 under Sec.5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 2688 days in filing the petition for setting aside the dismissal order dated 22.12.1994 in A.S.121/1990. The respondents filed counter in I.A.823/2002 denying all the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the petition. While dictating the order, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the civil revision petition with a liberty to pursue I.A.811/1995 before the Court below. Permission is accorded. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with a liberty as sought for. No order as to costs. ___________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 11.11.2010 Dsr