HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2099 of 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 29.12.2008 in I.A.No.46 of 2008 in A.S.No.20 of 2003 on the file of the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam The petitioners herein, who suffered a decree for Rs.30,932/- in the suit O.S.No.3253 of 1999 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, filed an appeal in A.S.No.20 of 2003 on the file of the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam. It is stated that the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff was decreed on 29.10.2001, that the first petitioner-Company, represented by its Managing Director, second petitioner herein, preferred an appeal in A.S.No.20 of 2003 in the year 2003 and that the said appeal was dragged on till 22.06.2005. As the arguments were not advanced, the appeal was dismissed for default on 22.06.2005. The second petitioner herein filed an application in I.A.No.46 of 2008, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 1148 days in filing the application, under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, to set aside the order of default. The second petitioner filed the said application in the year 2008 i.e. after a lapse of 3½ years after the appeal was dismissed for default on 22.06.2005. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application that the second petitioner was suffering from heart ailment, diabetes and blood pressure, that as both his kidneys were effected, he was under constant medical treatment, that he was on dialysis since the year 2002, that he had got the gadget inserted into the right side of his stomach and got it removed later and that the said dialysis could be done at home once in every five hours in a day. It is further stated that, the second petitioner on receipt of summons in E.P.No.132 of 2008 in O.S.No.3253 of 1999 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, contacted his counsel, that his counsel had informed him that the appeal in A.S.No.20 of 2003 was dismissed for default on 22.06.2005. Hence the present application. The second petitioner states that he underwent medical treatment from 09.05.2002 to 16.01.2008. Admittedly, he did not file any medical certificates issued by the doctor, who inserted the gadget and had removed it later and who treated him for dialysis. However, it is for the advocate to advance the arguments in the absence of his client. The learned Judge, considering the rival contentions, dismissed the application on the ground that he did not file any medical certificates issued by the doctor. Even, according to the second petitioner, though he fell ill from the year, 2002, he preferred an appeal in the year, 2003. Hence, it cannot be said that the second petitioner was not at all in a position to pursue the appeal. The appeal was filed with an inordinate delay of 1148 days. Therefore, I do not see any reason to condone the delay as no sufficient cause was shown to condone such inordinate delay. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. V. ESWARAIAH,J Date:17.02.2011 usd