THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH C.R.P.M.P.No.52 of 2009 and CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1006 of 2010 ORDER: This application is filed to condone the delay of 215 days in filing the Civil Revision Petition. The said petition was initially ordered on 05-03-2010 without hearing the respondent even though counter opposing condonation of delay was filed as early as on 01-06-2009. Therefore, immediately on a mention made by the learned counsel for the respondent that the delay application was ordered without hearing the respondent, the order, dated 05- 03-2010 was recalled and C.R.P.M.P.No.52 of 2009 is posted for hearing. Heard both the counsel. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the delay is not 215 days, but the actual delay is 4183 days. Admittedly, the appeal in A.S.No.45 of 1990 filed by the respondent on the file of the District Judge, Chittoor, against the order of the Settlement Officer, Nellore, dated 12-10- 1989, was allowed by order, dated 31-07-1997. Thereafter, on 16-12-2002, the petitioner filed application No.10436 of 2002 seeking copy of the said order and the same was made ready on the same day. But, the Civil Revision Petition is filed in the year 2008. The period of limitation for filing C.R.P. under Section 115 of CPC is 90 days and if 90 days is added, the revision ought to have been filed by 31-10-1997. The copy application was filed on 16-12-2002. By the date of filing copy application, there was a delay of five years. Even, after obtaining certified copy on 16-12- 2002, the revision was not filed immediately, but it was filed in the year 2008. Thus, there is a delay of 4183 days in filing the Civil Revision Petition. The only reason shown in the application to condone the delay is that the certified copy of the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.45 of 1990 was misplaced while shifting of the building and, therefore, the Civil Revision Petition could not be filed within time. Thus, there was a delay of 215 days. The office even, without verifying and looking into the certified copy, simply numbered the delay application, as if the delay was only 215 days. Absolutely, no reasons have been shown explaining the inordinate delay of 4183 days. Therefore, the application is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. However, as per the order of the appellate court, the appeal was allowed directing to delete the petition schedule land from the Reserved Forest on the ground that the land has been cultivated prior to 1948 and post abolition and never treated as a forest land. However, the said deletion is subject to the respondent obtaining patta from the Settlement Officer as per the Estate Abolition Act. Till such time, the Government was directed not to recover possession from the respondent. In fact, the Settlement Officer, vide his proceedings in D.Dis.No.19773/95, dated 18-11-1995, rejected the claim of the respondent herein. Against which, the respondent filed a revision before the Commissioner and Director of Settlements, A.P., Hyderabad, and the Commissioner vide his proceedings in R.P.No.4/96/B, dated 05-02-2004, remanded the matter to the Settlement Officer-cum-Joint Collector, chittoor, for fresh adjudication on the ground of admissibility of the claim and the matter is pending before the Settlement Officer-cum-Joint Collector, Chittoor, for adjudication. If that be so, the petitioner is entitled to implead himself in the claim made by the respondent, which is said to have been pending for adjudication before the Settlement Officer-cum-Joint Collector, Chittoor, for opposing grant of patta in favour of the respondent. With the aforesaid observation, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 20-08-2010 Prv