THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVL REVISION PETITION No.4135 of 2010 Dated 29th January, 2011 Between: Smt.Vadditandra Ramanamma …Petitioner And Kaspa Narayana Rao and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri T.Vinod Kumar Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2: Sri A.Rama Rao The Court made the following: ORDER: This civil revision petition arises out of order, dated 28.06.2010, in I.A.No.844 of 2009, in unnumbered A.S., on the file of the learned District Judge, Srikakulam, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay of 493 days in filing the appeal against the judgment and decree, dated 28.09.2007, in O.S.No.148 of 2002 on the file of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, was dismissed. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.Rama Rao, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. The petitioner is plaintiff No.3 in O.S.No.148 of 2002 filed before the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam for partition of the suit properties. The said suit was decreed, under which the petitioner was allotted 1/30th share. Partly aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the petitioner filed an appeal before the District Court, Srikakulam. As there was delay in filing the appeal, the petitioner filed I.A.No.844 of 2009 for condonation of delay of 493 days in filing the said appeal. In her affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay, the petitioner has stated that due to the changes in the statute, the petitioner is entitled to 1/5th share as against 1/30th share allotted in her favour and that due to ignorance of law, she could not file the appeal in time. The learned District Judge held that ignorance of law is no excuse, while rejecting the petitioner’s application for condonation of delay. On a careful reading of the affidavit filed by the petitioner in the lower Court, I am convinced that the petitioner failed to adduce proper and cogent reasons for condonation of long delay of 493 days in filing the appeal. It is not the case of the petitioner that amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 has come into force either during the pendency of the suit or after its disposal. In fact, the said amendment has come into force as far back the year 1985. If not the petitioner, her counsel was expected to be aware of this amendment. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned District Judge dismissing the petitioner’s application for condonation of delay. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the civil revision petition, C.R.P.M.P.No.5502 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 29th January, 2011 VGB