IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2135 of 2008 BETWEEN: Matty Satyanarayana Murthy … PETITIONER(S) And Mohammad Abdul Khadar Sirajuddin … RESPONDENT(S) HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHAKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2135 of 2008 ORDER: The decree holder in O.S.No.246 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada is the petitioner in this revision. 2. The said suit is a mortgage suit and he obtained a mortgage preliminary decree dated 28.03.2002 against the respondent herein i.e. the defendant in the suit and the Court granted two months time for redemption. There was delay in filing the petition for final decree. The decree holder therefore filed I.A.No.1892 of 2005 on 01.08.2005 for condonation of delay pleading that the delay was of 2 days. 3. The opposite party filed counter resisting that petition and his plea is that the delay is not of 2 days but of 61 days. The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge went into this controversy and concluded that there was 64 days delay and the petitioner did not explain the delay properly and instead he came up with the plea that the delay is only 2 days which is factually incorrect and in that view of the matter he accordingly dismissed that petition by his order dated 01.02.2008 which is now challenged in this revision. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the petitioner is personally not aware of the limitation rules and that he was informed by his counsel that the final decree petition has to be filed by 28.05.2005 and he accordingly signed the papers and sent them and he was not aware as to how the delay of 61 days occurred whereas he was always under the impression that the delay was only 2 days. Sri T.Lakshminarayana on the other hand pointed out that the order of the learned Senior Civil Judge cannot be faulted as there is no evidence at all before him to conclude the matter in favour of the petitioner. 5. Having heard both sides and having gone through the affidavit of the petitioner I am of the opinion that it is quite possible that the petitioner was wrongly advised in the matter in filing the condone delay petition. In the circumstances I am of the opinion that he should be given one more opportunity to pursue his remedy properly. Accordingly the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada and the petitioner shall again file a fresh affidavit before the Principal Senior Civil Judge setting forth his case which resulted in the delay mentioning the period of delay and the opposite party shall have every opportunity to oppose that case. The trial Court shall give sufficient opportunity to both sides and decide the matter afresh. No costs. _____________________ N.RAVI SHANKAR,J 11th March, 2011 Cvrk