THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2084 OF 2011 01.07.2011 Between: Majji Ramulu And another. …Petitioner AND Vanga Veera Raghava Reddy …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2084 OF 2011 ORDER: The respondent’s suit being O.S.No.190 of 2005 for partition was decreed by the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Anaparthy. The petitioners are defendants in the suit. A final decree was passed in I.A.No.578 of 2009 by the trial Court. Being aggrieved, the petitioners – the second petitioner is the son-in-law of first petitioner – filed A.S. (S.R.) No.12483 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Judge, Rajahmundry with a delay of 55 days. They, therefore, filed an application being I.A.No.173 of 2011 under Order XLI Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) and Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay of 55 days. The application was dismissed by the learned District Judge on 28.04.2011, observing that the petitioners did not explain the reason nor shown sufficient cause for condonation of delay. This is assailed in this civil revision petition. This Court heard the counsel for petitioners who reiterated the same grounds which were urged before the Court below. It is well settled that when a Court subordinate to High Court exercises discretion in favour of the party to the proceedings and condones delay, ordinarily, the High Court shall not interfere. But, when the Court refuses to condone the delay, the revisional Court has to consider the issue independently (N.Balakrishnan v M.Krishnamurthy[1]). Applying this principle, this Court has considered the application of the petitioners for condonation of delay in the first appeal before the learned District Judge. In the affidavit in support of I.A.No.173 of 2011 filed by the second petitioner, who was as stated supra is son-in-law of the first petitioner, he alleged that the first petitioner is aged and is not keeping good health and therefore, he is looking after the case. The further allegation is that the he also fell ill and he was under the treatment as a result of which, the appeal could not be filed within time. The affidavit does not refer to any medical certificate. But when the matter was heard by the learned District Judge, they produced a medical certificate issued by Sri Venkata Kondala Rao Nursing Home, Biccavolu, dated 10.02.2010. After considering the same, the learned District Judge observed as under. The petitioners filed medical certificate issued by Sri Venkata Kondala Rao Nursing Home, Biccavolu, dated 10.02.2010. According to it, the 2nd petitioner underwent treatment from 02.11.2010 to 02.12.2010 for his disease of ‘Virul Hepatitis’ and he was advised to take bed rest. Thus, the 2nd petitioner suffered from ill health for a period of exactly one month i.e., from 02.11.2010 to 02.12.2010. The order in question in appeal was passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Anaparthy on 29.10.2010. Copy application was made on 03.12.2010 and ready on 07.12.2010. So, the limitation starts from the day when the copy was made ready on 07.12.2010. By that time, the 2nd petitioner recovered from his illness as per the medical certificate issued by Dr.T.Potha Raju of Sri Venkata Kondala Rao Nrsing Home. But the appeal was filed on 24.12.2010. When the 2nd petitioner recovered from his illness on 02.12.2010 nothing prevented him to prefer the appeal in time. Even assuming for a moment, that the 2nd petitioner was suffering from ill-health and underwent treatment till 02.12.2010 still there is an unexplained delay of 22 days during the month of December, 2010 itself for which no explanation was offered by the 2nd petitioner. The findings as above are not disputed before this Court. Therefore, it is clear that the second petitioner, who admittedly was looking after the case was ill from 02.11.2010 to 02.12.2010 and the appeal was filed 22 days thereafter. This was not properly explained. This Court is therefore convinced that the petitioners did not properly plead nor proved the sufficient cause warranting condonation of delay and no interference is called for. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 01.07.2011 Pln [1] (1998) 7 SCC 123 (Para 9) : AIR 1998 SC 3222