*THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY +CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4168 of 2010 % Date:01.04.2011 #Gangarapu Karenna ..... Petitioner Vs $Jami Karuvu & another. .....Respondents < Gist > Head Note ! Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Aravala Rama Rao ^ Counsel for Respondent: ----- ? Cases referred: Nil. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4168 of 2010 Between: Gangarapu Karenna ..... Petitioner AND Jami Karuvu & another. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Aravala Rama Rao The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4168 of 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order dated 10.02.2010 in I.A.No.727 of 2010 in A.S.No.— of 2010 (GR.No.827) on the file of the learned District Judge, Srikakulam. A perusal of the record shows that as notices sent to the respondents returned un-served, the learned counsel for the petitioner served notice on Sri M. Kranthi, learned counsel, who appeared for the respondents in the lower Court and filed acknowledgement along with proof of service. Despite service of notice on their counsel, the respondents have not entered appearance. I have heard Sri A. Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.108 of 2001 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Pathapatnam. The said suit was filed for perpetual injunction against the respondents. After trial, the suit was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 20.10.2009. The petitioner filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, Srikakulam, with an application for condonation of delay of 13 days in filing the appeal. The said application, having been dismissed, the petitioner filed the present Civil Revision Petition. In support of his application, the petitioner has stated that he is an illiterate and that as his counsel did not receive the certified copy in time, a delay of 13 days occurred in filing the appeal in the lower appellate Court. The learned District Judge rejected the above reason assigned by the petitioner on the ground that mere ignorance is not an excuse and that nothing prevented him from approaching his counsel and filing the appeal in time. In my opinion, having regard to the fact that the delay of 13 days is too short to be taken seriously, the Court below ought to have displayed a somewhat liberal approach in dealing with the application. Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 a fair amount of discretion is vested in the Courts while dealing with the applications for condonation of delay. The law is well settled that the Courts should be neither too liberal nor too technical and pedantic in dealing with the applications for condonation of delay. After all the intendment of law is to decide cases on merits rather than by default. While the Courts shall always discourage litigants, who fail to show proper diligence in pursuing the litigation and those, who intentionally procrastinate the legal proceedings, a fair amount of latitude is required to be shown towards bona fide litigants. Considering that the delay is trivial and the nature of explanation offered by him, the petitioner deserves to be shown lenience. For the abovementioned reasons, the impugned order is set aside and the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The learned District Judge is directed to entertain the appeal and dispose of the same on merits. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 01.04.2011 ES LR copies to be marked.