HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1260 of 2010 Date: 10th June 2010 Between: Muralidhar Pohekar. … Petitioner And Municipal Corporation, Warangal, rep. by its Commissioner. … Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1260 of 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of C.P.C., is filed by the petitioner/appellant, aggrieved by the order, dated 29th of August 2007, passed in I.A.No.2840 of 2006 in A.S.(SR).No.7900 of 2006, by the learned Principal District Judge, Warangal, rejecting the said I.A. filed by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, for condoning the delay of 744 days in preferring the appeal. Petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.555 of 2001. The said suit is filed for specific performance of contract and to execute the registered sale deed and delivery of possession of the suit schedule plots in his favour, mainly on the ground that his Late Father was the successful bidder for purchase of the plots, which were auctioned by the Municipal authorities. The said suit is dismissed by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, by the judgment, dated 1st of October 2004. As against the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Principal District Judge, Warangal, but, as there is a delay of 744 days in preferring the appeal, the petitioner has filed an application in I.A.No.2842 of 2006 under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, to condone the aforesaid delay. The lower appellate Court, by the impugned order, dismissed the said application on the ground that the delay was not properly explained. Hence, this revision. On filing the revision petition, this Court, on 26.03.2010, ordered notice before admission and permitted the petitioner to send notice to the respondent by registered post with acknowledgement due and file proof of service. Pursuant to the said orders, the petitioner, having served notice on the respondent, filed proof of service. Inspite of the same, there is no appearance on behalf of respondent to oppose this revision petition. In this revision, it is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner could not pursue the matter, as he was suffering from severe illness. It is submitted that as the suit was filed for specific performance of the contract, if the delay is not condoned, the petitioner will be put to irreparable loss and injury. I have perused the copy of the impugned order. It is the specific allegation of the petitioner that the suit was dismissed on 01.10.2004 and he contacted his Advocate on 04.10.2004 and filed the copy application on 05.10.2004, and thereafter, he could not contact his Advocate, as he was under the treatment of the Doctor. In the affidavit, it is categorically stated that he could not come out of the house till 30.11.2006, as he was suffering from severe back-ache. Although no certification from the Doctor is filed, but merely non- filing of certificate, by itself, is no ground to disbelieve the statement made in the affidavit to the effect that he could not approach the Advocate as he was not well, to pursue the appeal. As much as it is stated that the suit filed by the petitioner is for specific performance of contract, I deem it appropriate that it is a fit case to give further chance to the petitioner by condoning the delay in filing the appeal, by imposing costs on him. For the aforesaid reasons, the order under challenge, dated 29.08.2007, passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Warangal, in I.A.No.2840 of 2006 in A.S.(SR).No.7900 of 2006, is set aside, and consequently, the said I.A. stands allowed, on condition of payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the Municipal Corporation, Warangal, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Revision petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 10th June 2010 ajr