THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1988 OF 2010 DATED 11-06-2010 Between: Nandam Subrahmanyam. … PETITIONER And Smt. P.Jayamma & another. ... RESPONDENTS ORDER: This petition under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure is directed against an order dated 23-02-2010 made in I.A.No.881 of 2005 in A.S.No.--of 2005 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Nellore. 2. Petitioner is the defendant and 1st respondent is the plaintiff. The 1st respondent laid O.S.No.846 of 2000 on the file of the learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore, seeking permanent injunction, and the said suit was decreed, after full trial, on 17-11-2003. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner appears to have filed A.S.No.-- of 2005 and since there was a delay of about 622 days in filing the appeal, he had filed I.A.No.881 of 2005 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking to condone the delay. The said application was resisted by the respondent. After considering the rival contentions, the appellate Court dismissed the said application. Aggrieved thereby, the present revision is filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that petitioner was not available in town and therefore he could not verify as to when the suit was disposed of. He was residing in Uttara Karnataka and also he fell ill and as soon as he came to know about disposal of the suit in the month of August, 2005 he preferred appeal. A certificate, issued by the employer of his son, was also filed by the petitioner to show that he was residing in Uttara Karnataka. However, the Court below observed that petitioner failed to substantiate his contention of ill-health with which he was suffering and immobilized from October, 2003 to August, 2005, and therefore, dismissed the said petition since no sufficient cause was shown. 4. It is not a case where the suit was decreed ex parte. Suit was disposed of after full trial and petitioner participated in the trial of the suit. However, he could not know about the result of the suit since he was staying with his son in Karnataka. In a case of this nature, particularly causing delay in filing the appeal against a judgment and decree, which was passed after full participation of the parties and trial, a lenient view should be taken by the Court. Whereas the appellate Court made a pedantic approach and dismissed the application on the ground that no material has been placed before the Court to establish that the petitioner was suffering from ill health from October, 2003 to August, 2005. 5. Under those circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner should be given an opportunity to prove his case by filing appropriate certificate issued by the competent authority to show that he was unwell and was staying with his son in Uttar Karnataka from October, 2003 to August, 2005 etc., In view of the same, the order impugned is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Court below for reconsideration. The parties are at liberty to adduce evidence, both oral and documentary, and thereafter the appellate Court shall dispose of the same, on its own merits, as per law. 6. Accordingly, Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ C.V.RAMULU, J 11th June, 2010. Tsy