THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P.No.4918 of 2009 ORDER The petitioner, who suffered a decree of dismissal in a suit for declaration and recovery of possession, preferred A.S (SR) No.3075 of 2008 before the learned District Judge, Warangal, however, the same was beyond limitation. Hence, an application-I.A.No.1129 of 2008 was filed seeking condonation of delay of 120 days in preferring the appeal. Respondents herein filed counter pointing out that the affidavit of the petitioner does not refer to the name of the Doctor and as such, the delay cannot be condoned. The Court below on perusal of the medical certificate and affidavit was not prepared to accept that the cause shown by the petitioner is sufficient and accordingly dismissed the application for condonation of delay. This revision is preferred against the said order. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side. Xerox copy of the medical certificate is produced before this Court also, which is a proforma certificate issued for non-Gazetted Officer by the Government Medical Attendant. The doctor, who issued the said medical certificate as well as the fitness certificate is a member of A.P. Medical Council, Hyderabad. The said two certificates were issued on behalf of Laxmi Sai Nursing Home, Kazipet, which shows that the petitioner, who was doing tailoring work, was suffering from the ailments mentioned in the certificate and the accompanying fitness certificate shows that he can resume to his routine work from 4.5.2008 as usual as he is cured of the ailments. The affidavit, no doubt, contains blanks with regard to ailments as well as the name of the Doctor, but undoubtedly, the medical certificate is produced, which cures the said defect as the blanks in the affidavit are duly supplemented by the medical certificate. The Court below, therefore, has not properly appreciated the reason shown by the petitioner. The petitioner has a statutory right of appeal under Section 96 CPC, would not stand to any benefit by not preferring the appeal within time. The petitioner is aged about 70 years and explained his inability on account of medical grounds supported by the certificate also. Therefore, I am of the view that the Court below has taken a very hyper technical approach in refusing the application of the petitioner. The impugned order is therefore, is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. However, the petitioner, who does not appear to be very diligent in prosecuting the appeal, is required to be mulcted with costs. As the delay of 120 days in preferring the appeal to some extent prejudiced the respondents, this revision is, therefore, allowed on condition of the petitioner depositing costs of Rs.5,000/- before the lower Court within six weeks from today and on such deposit, the respondents shall be entitled to withdraw the same without furnishing any security. On compliance of the condition as above, the lower Court shall number the appeal, if it is otherwise in order and shall dispose of the same in accordance with law. __________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR,J rkk Dated: 21-10-2011