THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CRP NO. 2660 OF 2009 30-10-2009 BETWEEN; M.Singa Reddy and another . ...Petitioners vs. E.Raghavaiah and another ...Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CRP NO. 2660 OF 2009 ORAL ORDER: This revision petition is misconceived. The revision petitioners ar the defendants in O.S.No.148 of 2000 on the file of the Court of Junior Civ Judge, Chirala, which is filed for specific performance of an agreement o sale dated 20.06.1998. The suit was decreed on 12.10.2006. Th petitioners preferred an appeal thereagainst before the Senior Civ Judge’s Court, Chirala along with I.A.No.561 of 2008 for condonation of delay of 522 days in preferring the appeal. In the affidavit accompanying I.A.No.561 of 2008 the petitioner pleaded that after closure of evidence in the suit, they had contacted the counsel several times but he did not inform them as to the proceedings o the case and that the plaintiffs had also misled them that they would no press the suit. After the suit was decreed they obtained a certified cop through their counsel and for some time could not pay the court fee i preferring the appeal and hence the delay. The court below, considered the aforesaid plea of the petitioners a well as the pleadings in counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the plaintiffs an observed that the explanation offered for the inordinate delay of 522 day is wholly unsatisfactory. The plea that they believed the plaintiffs’ versio that they would not press the suit was not accepted by the lower appellat court as it rightly found that there was no averment in the applicatio accompanying I.A.No.561 of 2008 that there were any efforts in process fo a compromise, after conclusion of the trial of the suit. The court below als found that the revision petitioners were aware of the litigation and ha actively participated till the completion of their evidence. The court below further held that the petitioners were aware of E.P.No.49 of 2007 filed b the plaintiffs wherein the first revision petitioner had engaged a counse and also got filed a vakalat on 20-06-2007 which fact finds no mention i the affidavit of the petitioner. The pleadings by the petitioners in support o their application seeking condonation of delay was disbelieved in toto. Th court below found rightly that the petitioners had putforth jejune reasons fo seeking condonation of the extraordinary delay of 522 days and henc dismissed I.A.No.561 of 2008. This court finds no revisable error in the application of law or th exercise of discretion by the Court below, warranting interference. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed at the stage o admission. No costs. ______________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 30th OCTOBER 2009. TSNR