IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY (3RD) of MARCH, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.427 of 2004 Between: Tirumalasetty Bhagyamma & 3 others … Petitioners And: Tirumalasetti Achamma & 3 others ….Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.427 of 2004 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 17.11.2003 in un-numbered I.A. in .I.A No.15 of 2001 in un-numbered appeal, filed by the petitioner under Sections 148 and 151 CPC for condoning the delay in depositing the costs of Rs.2,000/- was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. None appeared for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. The petitioners herein are the defendants in OS No.3 of 1998, which was decreed on 02.05.1998. Aggrieved by the said judgment the petitioners herein filed an appeal and the said appeal was returned for complying certain objections. Thereafter, the petitioners filed application for amendment of the decree and after the decree was amended, the petitioners re-presented the appeal. Meanwhile, there occurred delay of 748 days. The petitioners filed IA No.15 of 2001 for condonation of the delay of 748 days and the lower appellate Court by order dated 30.10.2003 allowed the said petition on payment of costs of Rs.2,000/- payable on or before 17.11.2003 but the costs were not paid by that date. The petitioners filed un-numbered I.A. for extension of time for payment of costs and the said petition was dismissed on 17.11.2003. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed. 4. It is to be noted that the delay occurred on account of the proceedings pending for amendment of the decree. As seen from the order dated 30.10.2003, learned counsel for the respondents also stated no objection for condonation of delay on payment of heavy costs and accordingly costs of Rs.2000/- were imposed with a direction to pay the same on or before 17.11.2003, failing which, petition stands dismissed. According to the petitioners, costs could not be paid as the first petitioner was out of station during relevant time, having gone to Madras for medical treatment and therefore she could not receive the letter addressed by the counsel informing about the orders passed by the Court. It is also stated that on 17.11.2003 itself, learned counsel for the petitioners filed application for grant of 15 days time to pay the costs of Rs.2,000/-, but the said petition was dismissed in view of the default clause. 5. Having regard to the fact that the order condoning the delay was virtually passed with consent and in view of the averment in the affidavit that the petitioner had gone to Madras for treatment during relevant period, and therefore costs could not be paid in time and also an application for extension of time was filed on 17.11.2003 itself, it is considered that time can be extended for payment of costs and the same is accordingly extended. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the costs were already deposited into Court. 6. In the circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and consequently, IA No.15 of 2001 stands allowed condoning the delay in re-presenting the appeal. The learned lower appellate Court is directed to register the appeal, if it is otherwise in order. 7. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed. No order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 03.03.2011 bss