THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2452 of 2009 ORDER: This revision is filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order, dated 04.02.2009, passed by the Principal District Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry in I.A.No.2516 of 2008 in A.S.SR.No.6943 of 2008, whereby the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 199 days in filing the appeal against the judgment and decree, dated 11.10.2007, passed in I.P.No.29 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry, was dismissed. The petitioners filed above I.P to adjudicate respondents 1 and 2 as insolvents and for annulment of sale deeds executed by respondents 1 and 2 in favour of respondents 3 to 5 and for vesting the petition schedule properties with the Official Receiver. The said I.P. was allowed partly adjudicating respondents 1 and 2 as insolvents and vesting the present properties elicited by the petitioners as well as respondents 1 and 2 with the Official Receiver for the purpose of discharging the petition A schedule debts and other debts finalized in the list of creditors after following the procedure under the provisions of the Provisional Insolvents Act and to discharge them, and dismissed the rest of the claim. Aggrieved by the order dated 11.10.2007 respondents 1 and 2 filed A.S.No.206 of 2007 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Rajahmundry, in so far as adjudicating them as insolvents. Whereas, aggrieved by the dismissal of the rest of the claim, the petitioners filed A.S.SR.No.6943 of 2008 before the Principal District Judge, East Godavari along with the above I.A to condone the delay of 199 days in filing the appeal. In the said I.A, the petitioners stated that after adjudicating respondents 1 and 2 as insolvents by the trial Court, they approached them for compromise assuring to discharge their liability even though they preferred appeal. Respondents 1 and 2 represented them that the second respondent was elected as a Corporator of Rajahmundry Municipal Corporation and to continue as a Corporator they had to prefer an appeal and thus they preferred the appeal, but they failed to discharge their liability. Hence, the petitioners prayed to condone the delay in preferring the appeal. The Court below rejected the I.A on the ground that the petitioners kept quiet for good length of time without taking necessary steps to file the appeal and they were under the impression that no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the appeal. Further, the appeal is based upon the evidence that might have been already adduced in the I.Ps and it is unbelievable that even though the petitioners got case, which was rejected by the lower Court, they kept quiet for long time without filing the appeal. The very fact that against the order passed in I.P.No.29 of 2004 in so far as declaring them as insolvents, respondents 1 and 2 filed A.S.No.206 of 2007 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Rajahmundry, has to be taken into consideration for condoning the delay in preferring the appeal against the dismissal of part of the claim made by the petitioners. In view of the same, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioners failed to show sufficient cause for condoning the delay, cannot be accepted. In the circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and I.A.No.2516 of 2008 in A.S.SR.No.6943 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Judge, East Godavari, is allowed condoning the delay subject to condition of the petitioners paying costs of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) to the District Legal Services Authority, Rajahmundry, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the lower Court shall club both the appeals and dispose of the same together. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed. _____________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J Date: 21.08.2009 va