IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.940 OF 2010 Between : Chintu Granites and others. .... PETITIONERS A N D Sreenivasa Engineer Enterprises and another. … RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.940 OF 2010 O R D E R: This Civil Revision Petition, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) is directed against the order and decree, dated 17.12.2009, in I.A.No.2722 of 2009 in A.S.S.R.No.13305 of 2009 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby, the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short, ‘the Act’) for condonation of delay of 42 days in filing the appeal, was dismissed. 2 Heard. 3. The suit O.S. No.878 of 2007 on the file of the VI Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, was filed by respondent No.1 herein/plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,46,095/-. After adducing evidence by both sides, the suit was decreed with costs. Thereafter the petitioners’ herein/defendants field an appeal, but there was a delay of 42 days in filing the appeal. That petition was dismissed by the appellate Court on the ground that the delay was not satisfactorily explained. 4. The word ‘sufficient cause’ has not been defined under Section 5 of the Act. But it must mean a cause which is beyond the control of the party invoking the aid of the said provision. 5. The reason for the delay is that petitioner No.2, the mother of the petitioner No.3, was suffering from some ailment and she was admitted in a Super Specialty Hospital. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the delay has been satisfactorily explained. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 contended that petitioner No.3 was not suffering from any ailment and therefore, nothing prevented him to file an appeal. 7. As P.W.2 was suffering from some ailment and she was admitted in the hospital, being a son he has to look after the welfare his mother. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that he should have rushed to the Court in order to file an appeal. Therefore, proper explanation was given by the petitioners for not filing the appeal in time. The appellate Court ought to have allowed the petition. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order, dated 17.12.2009, in I.A.No.2722 of 2009 in A.S.S.R.No.13305 of 2009 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, and the appellate Court is directed to number the appeal, if it is otherwise in order, on condition of petitioners depositing 50% of the decreetal amount together with costs and interest within a period of six weeks from today. For any reason, if the petitioners fail to deposit the amount, the order of the appellate Court shall be given effect to. For the purpose of extension of time, no petition will be entertained. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ K.C.BHANU, J FEBRUARY 24, 2011. YVL