THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO CRP NO.5808 OF 2009 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order passed in IA No. 282 of 2009 in unregistered CMA No. of 2009 by the learned District Judge, at Adilabad declining to condone the delay of 78 days in preferring the CMA against the orders in IA No. 175 of 2008 in OS No. 84 of 2008. The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs in the suit. The suit is instituted seeking perpetual injunction to restrain the respondents herein, who are the defendants, from interfering in any manner with their possession of land of an extent of Ac.5.04 gts. But, however, while considering the IA No. 175 of 2008, the trial court has merely ordered both parties to maintain status quo over the suit schedule land existing as of the date on which the suit is instituted. The plaintiffs have preferred an appeal there against and since there was delay in preferring the said Appeal, they sought for condonation of such a delay. At this stage, it is not proper to pronounce any opinion as to the tenability of the claim for injunction by the plaintiffs. What is relevant to be examined is as to whether a genuine and valid reason and good cause shown for condonation of delay of 78 days. The principles relating to the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 5 of the Limitation Act are well settled. They do not require any reiteration. It is fundamental that an attempt should be made to explain satisfactorily as to how the delay has been caused. Sri Sharat Sanghi, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the explanation offered by the petitioners herein for condonation of delay is so untenable, inasmuch as it cannot be described even as a reason much less a valid one. It is true that while exercising the discretion vested, care has got to be taken by the courts to exercise the same on proper lines. In matters relating to grant of injunctions, as to whether grant of such an injunction is warranted or not is dependant so much upon the facts and circumstances of the case concerned. It is all the more so when the CMA itself has been preferred against an order directing both parties to the suit to maintain status quo with regard to the suit schedule land obtaining as on the date of institution of the suit. These are the matters perhaps which deserve to be considered on merits. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I consider it appropriate to exercise the discretion. Subject to the petitioners paying a sum of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) to the respondents herein on or before 15.3.2010, the delay of 78 days in preferring the CMA against the orders passed in IA NO. 175 of 2008 in OS No. 84 of 2008 is condoned. If the petitioners herein fail to pay the said amount by tendering the same to the respondents herein directly or sent through postal money order or by way of account payee demand draft on or before 15.3.2010, no further steps need be taken and the CMA does not require to be registered. If on the other hand, the petitioners pay the said amount, the Court of the District Judge, Adilabad is directed to register the CMA and consider the same on its merits. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly disposed of. -------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J Note: Issue CC immediately. (b/o) 19th February 2010 knk ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{JMR}