THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1809 OF 2010 Dated 23rd July, 2010 Between: Pandugula Yellamma @ Hemavathi … Petitioner And P.Hanumana Goud and five others … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri A.S.C.Bose Counsel for respondents 3 & 4 : Sri K.Somakonda Reddy The Court made the following ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order dated 22.02.2010 in I.A.No.2376 of 2008 in A.S.No.--- of 2008, whereby the learned Principal District Judge, Kurnool, dismissed the application for condonation of delay. I have heard Sri A.S.C.Bose, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri K.Somakonda Reddy, learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4. The petitioner filed O.S.No.58 of 1997 for partition of ABCD schedule properties. The said suit was partly decreed by judgment and decree dated 27.12.2000 in respect of ‘C’ and ‘D’ schedule properties. Feeling aggrieved by refusal to grant a decree in respect of ‘B’ schedule properties, the petitioner filed an appeal in the District Court, Kurnool. Along with the said appeal, the petitioner filed I.A.No.2376 of 2008 for condonation of delay of 2869 days in filing the appeal. The said application having been dismissed, the petitioner filed the present Civil Revision Petition. In her affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay, the petitioner has stated that by the time the suit was partly decreed, she was only 21 or 22 years old and not worldly-wise; that she was an agricultural coolie and housewife while her husband is a rustic and illiterate agriculturist and that on account of their ignorance and failure to receive communication or advise from their advocate, she could not file the appeal. In support of her application, the petitioner examined herself as P.W.1. The Court below has taken note of her oral evidence, which revealed that she attended the trial Court till completion of the arguments; that she met her counsel within one month after completion of the arguments and that her counsel has informed her that she has lost the suit. Considering the said evidence, the learned District Judge observed that her plea of ignorance cannot be accepted in the light of the fact that she was in touch with her counsel before and after the judgment was delivered. I am satisfied that the explanation offered by the petitioner for condonation of a huge delay of 2869 days is woefully inadequate. In my opinion, the reasons given by the Court below are convincing and they do not suffer from any error warranting interference with the said order. For the abovementioned reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 23rd July, 2010 vrn