THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3835 OF 2011 Date:19.09.2011 Between: Smt.Budde Subbaraju and others .. Petitioners And Godey Satyanarayanamma and another .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3835 OF 2011 ORDER: The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 30.04.2011 in I.A.No.3067 of 2010 in A.S.SR.No.7482 of 2010. By the said order, the Court of the Principal District Judge, Rajahmundry, rejected the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay of 353 days in preferring the appeal against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.357 of 2005 dated 04.08.2009. The first respondent instituted the suit for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners and the second respondent (mother and her four sons) from interfering with the suit schedule property comprised in land admeasuring Ac.0.79 cents in Sy.No.130/2 of Gummuluru, H/o.Burugupudi Village. The suit was decreed on 04.08.2009. Being aggrieved, the defendants filed an appeal. As there was delay of 353 days, they filed the said I.A. They alleged that though the suit was decreed on 04.08.2009 and the certified copies of decree and judgment were handed over to the third petitioner, they were not aware of the suit result and therefore the delay is not willful and wanton. The Court below recorded a finding that the petitioners failed to establish that their advocate handed over the certified copies of judgment and decree to the third petitioner on 06.08.2010. After referring to P.K. Ramachandran v State of Kerala[1], Srinivasa Book Depot v Bank of India[2] and the latest judgment of the Supreme Court in Lanka Venkateswarlu v State of Andhra Pradesh[3], the learned Judge dismissed the said application. This Court, after considering the sufficient cause as alleged in the affidavit accompanying I.A.No.3067 of 2010, is convinced that except making a bald allegation, no effort was made by the petitioners to explain the delay of almost one year. Further, if delay is condoned, it would certainly prejudice the rights of the first respondent/plaintiff. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) 19.09.2011 KH [1] AIR 1998 SC 2276 [2] 2003 (1) ALD 126 [3] 2011 (1) UPLJ 242 (SC) : (2011) 4 SCC 363