THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P.No. 5239 of 2009 Dated: 05-02-2010 Between:- Modulla Koti Reddy ..Petitioner. And Devireddy Naga Ratnamma Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P.No. 5239 of 2009 Oral Order: The respondent herein filed O.S.No. 72 of 1996 before the Court of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Darsi for recovery of money on the basis of a promissory note dated12-05-1993 and the suit was decreed by the judgment and decree dated 25-10-2007. The revision petitioner, the defendant in the suit, filed I.A.No. 93 of 2009 before the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Darsi seeking condonation of a delay of 486 days in preferring appeal. In the affidavit accompanying the application seeking condonation of the delay, the revision petitioner pleaded that prior to the passing of the decree he was falsely implicated in crime No. 97 of 2007 of Mundlamur Police Station; was in judicial custody for nearly three months; was later enlarged on bail; had subsequently fallen ill; was advised medical treatment; took treatment to recover his health; that on account of village factions and one of his opponents attempting to assault him, he was on the run to save his life; and thereafter on coming to know that the respondent herein had filed an execution petition, had at last decided to file appeal along with an application for condonation of delay. This application – I.A.No. 93 of 2009 seeking condonation of delay was dismissed by the Court below recording the following reasons: “The petitioner has not mentioned in his affidavit when he was actually arrested in Cr. No. 97/07 when he was enlarged on bail. Ex.R.1 certified copy of chief affidavit of the present petitioner as D.W.2 in O.S.No. 26/03, he was present on 16.7.07 cross-examined in part by the advocate for the plaintiff in O.S. 26/03, he was further cross-examined on 6.2.08. Ex.R.2 is the certified copy of plaint the petitioner herein and another filed a suit O.S. 217/08 on the file of J.C.J. Darsi on 18.7.08. Ex.R.3 is the certified copy of gift deed executed by the petitioner in favour of Ramana Reddy and Koteswari on 6.8.08. Therefore, the above documentary evidence Ex.R.1 to R.3 had clearly proved the petitioner had prosecuted the matter in O.S. 26/03 and filed O.S. 217/08, subsequent to the decree dt. 28.10.07 in O.S. 72/96 by respondent herein. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that he was fell sick taken treatment is absolutely false. The petitioner has to explain each day to condone delay of 486 days, but the petitioner failed to give any satisfactory explanation to condone delay of 486 days. His contention in the affidavit had disproved by the respondent by filing Ex.R.1 toR3. When the plaintiff was able to prosecute the matter in O.S. 23/06 when he was cross-examined on two occasions i.e., on 16.7.07 and 16.2.08, he was fell sick subsequent the decree is absolutely false. When the respondent had filed execution proceedings 14/08 against the petitioner, the petitioner with a view to evade the liability or evade the decree filed the present petition with untenable grounds for which there are no merits to consider this application. Accordingly I answered the point.” This Court discerns no error either in the application of law or the exercise of discretion by the Court below, warranting revisional interference. The revision is without merits and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 05-02-2010 Pvks/*