THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU C.R.P.No. 2526 of 2010 ORDER: This civil revision petition under Section 115 C.P.C. is directed against the order made in I.A.No.1062 of 2009 in A.S.No.6 of 2003 dated 12.03.2010 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Kadapa whereunder the application filed by the petitioner under Order XLI Rule 19 C.P.C. to condone the delay of 983 days in filing an application to set aside the default order made on 03.03.2006 in A.S.No.6 of 2003 was dismissed. The petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant. The petitioner laid suit in O.S.No.827 of 2000 on the file of the learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa seeking a decree of specific performance. The said suit was dismissed after full trial. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner carried the matter in appeal in A.S.No.6 of 2003 before the learned Principal District Judge, Kadapa. The appeal was filed in the year 2003 and the same was dismissed on 03.03.2006 for non appearance of the plaintiff. Thereafter, an application to set aside the default order made on 03.03.2006 in A.S.No.6 of 2003 was filed. Since there was a delay of 983 days in filing the application to set aside the default order, the present I.A.No.1062 of 2009 is filed under Order XLI Rule 19 of C.P.C. The said application was resisted by the respondent/defendant by filing a detailed counter. The learned Principal District Judge considered the arguments on either side and passed the following order: “It is the case of the plaintiff that he was not aware about the dismissal of the appeal for default. It is certainly explainable by the plaintiff to contend that he was not aware of the default order soon after the default order for the reason that the plaintiff was otherwise busy to agitate about his retrenchment from service. At the same time, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the defendant, the delay on that count cannot be as enormous as 983 days. Added to it, barring for the bald assertion by the plaintiff that he could not come to know about the default order for as many as 983 days since he could not contact his counsel is absolutely not a satisfactory explanation. I therefore, consider that this is a fit case where the plaintiff failed to explain the delay in filing the application to set aside the default order in A.S.No.6 of 2003. The delay does not deserve to be condoned where the delay is as huge as 983 days and where the plaintiff failed to offer reasonable explanation for the condonation of the delay. This application therefore is found to be devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.” Aggrieved thereby the present civil revision petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. S.A. Razak strenuously contended that the appeal is nothing but continuation of the suit and unless and until the appeal is disposed of on merits, it cannot be said that the suit was decided on merits. Therefore, an opportunity should have been given by the learned Principal District Judge to the petitioner for prosecuting the appeal filed by him. The delay of 983 days could have been taken leniently and the same could have been condoned on payment of costs etc. Instead of doing that learned Principal District Judge has made a pedantic approach and dismissed the application without considering the merits, whereas learned counsel for the respondent Mr. S.V. Bhatt while supporting the order passed by the court below stated that absolutely the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the condone delay petition is bereft of any details and day to day delay was not explained except saying that the delay is not wilful as the petitioner was not informed by the advocate about the dismissal of the appeal till about one month prior to the filing of the Interlocutory Application. Further it is stated that the petitioner was removed from service. Therefore, he was very often going to Hyderabad to see that his job is restored. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made on either side and the material available on record. The affidavit filed in support of the interlocutory application does not disclose any details nor any sufficient cause was shown though there was an abnormal delay of 983 days in filing the application as noticed by the learned Principal District Judge. I am of the considered opinion that the lower court has not committed any error calling for interference of this Court under Section 115 C.P.C. The revision is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. C.V.RAMULU,J Dt. 25.01.2011 lvl THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU C.R.P.No. 2526 of 2010 Dt. 25.01.2011