THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI C.R.P. NO :3225 of 2010 Date: 30.7.2010 Between: Andhra Light Industries ….Petitioner And Bhargava Furnitures & Bhargava Carpets …Respondents THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI C.R.P. NO :3225 of 2010 Order: This Civil Revision petition is directed against the order dated 17.3.2009 in I.A. No. 3020 of 2008 in CMA Sr. No. 14550 of 2008 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The petitioner herein filed the aforementioned I.A. seeking to condone the delay of 1045 days in filing appeal against the order in I.A. No. 1281 of 2005 in O.S. No. 1194 of 1995. The lower appellate, by the order impugned in this revision, dismissed the said application on the ground that the petitioner failed to show sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Hence, the present appeal. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. Originally, the petitioner herein filed suit in O.S. No. 1194 of 1995 against the respondent seeking of recovery of certain amount. In that suit, the petitioner filed an application in I.A. No. 1027 of 2008 seeking amendment of the plaint, which was dismissed. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed C.R.P. No. 6124 of 2008 before this Court, which was also dismissed. In the meantime, the trial Court appears to have dismissed the suit filed by the petitioner for default. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for setting aside the ex- parte order, which was allowed on payment of costs and subject to the condition tat the petitioner shall adduce evidence by 26.10.2005. Though the petitioner paid the costs, he however failed to file the affidavit. Hence, the matter was adjourned to 3.11.2005 and even on that day, the petitioner failed to appear before the trial Court. Therefore, the trial Court dismissed the said petition. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the application in I.A. No. 1857 of 2005 to restore the suit and the said application was also dismissed. Questioning the said order, he filed C.M.A. No. 48 of 2007 before the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, which was also dismissed. As against the said order, the petitioner filed C.R.P. No. 1429 of 2008 before this Court. The said C.R.P. was dismissed by this Court with liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the present C.M.A. As there is a delay in filing the present C.M.A., the petitioner filed I.A. No. 3020 of 2008 seeking to condone the same. Admittedly, the petitioner withdrew the C.R.P. No. 1429 of 2008 filed by the petitioner against the order in C.MA. No. 48 of 2007 on 8.4.2008 and the petitioner filed the present I.A. nearly five months thereafter. The only explanation offered by the petitioner for filing the application so belatedly was that he suffered a heart attack and was taking treatment, besides death of two family members. However, he failed to file any documentary evidence in support of the said plea, in the absence of which, the lower appellate Court rightly dismissed the present I.A. In the circumstances, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order under revision warranting interference. The revision petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. ___________________ T.MEENA KUMARI,J Date: 30th July, 2010 pnb