HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P. No.5608 OF 2009 DATE:05-12-2009 BETWEEN: Koppisetty Pentayya (died) per LRs & Others. …Petitioners AND Koppisetty Bhimanna (died) per LRs. & Others. …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P. No.5608 OF 2009 ORDER: This revision is directed against the orders of the Principal District Judge, Rajahmundry, dated 6.11.2008 dismissing I.A.No.762 of 2008 in AS.Sr.No.544 of 2008 filed by the petitioners for condoning the delay of 1905 days in representing the AS.Sr. According to the petitioners, their father Koppisetty Pentayya died on 28.10.2002 and one week prior to filing of the impugned I.A. in November, 2007 they were told that one case record on their father’s name was lying in the record room of late Dinavahi Butchi Raju, Advocate, Ramachandrapuram and on such information, they approached the family members of said advocate, who handed over a bundle containing so many papers and on verification, they came to know about the appeal which was not numbered. It was pleaded that as the advocate on record died and the corresponding docket sheet happened to be in torn condition and other advocates could not clarify the position of the appeal, they engaged the present advocate and filed the impugned I.A. to condone the delay. Having not satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioners for the delay in representing the appeal for more than four years, the lower Court by the impugned order dismissed the I.A. When the petitioners came to know in the office of the District Court about the presentation of the appeal through their late father, definitely they ought to have obtained the ASSR number of the appeal which would be available in the name of the advocate and that the advocate whom the petitioners engaged to re-present the appeal could have verify the particulars on what date it was presented and returned. Therefore, the explanation offered by the petitioners that since the docket sheet torn off that they could not know the number and re-present the appeal is misconceived. In view of the same, the order passed by the lower Court in refusing to condone the delay in re-presenting the appeal does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this Court. The revision fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. DECEMBER 05, 2009 Tsr.