THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR C.R.P.Nos.4764 & 4767 of 2006 Date: 28.01.2011 Between: CRP No.4764 of 2006: Bezawada Adinarayana and another … Petitioners AND Bezawada Baby Sarojini … Respondent CRP No.4767 of 2006: ArumilliAtchutaramayya and another … Petitioners AND Bezawada baby Sarojini … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR C.R.P.Nos.4764 & 4767 of 2006 COMMON ORDER: The two revisions have common question of fact and law. They consequently are disposed of jointly. 2. The plaintiff in O.S.Nos.500 of 2003 and 516 of 2003 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Narsapuram, filed the suits for specific performance. In O.S.No.516 of 2003, there were two defendants. Defendant No.2, however, was no more by the date of the appeal. In O.S.No.500 of 2003 also there are two defendants. One Bezawada Adinarayana is the common defendant in both the suits. 3. As the defendants lost the suits before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Narsapuram, the defendants preferred the appeals before the Senior Civil Judge, Narsapuram. There was delay of 50 days in filing the appeals in both the cases. The defendants filed I.A.No.921 of 2005 in the appeal arising from the judgment and decree in O.S.No.500 of 2003. They also filed I.A.No.920 of 2005 in the appeal arising from the judgment and decree in O.S.No.516 of 2003. Both the interlocutory applications were with a delay of 50 days each in filing the respective appeals. Holding that the delay was not properly explained, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Narsapuram dismissed the applications filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Aggrieved by the same, the present revisions are laid. 4. It is the case of Kum. G. Sindhu, learned counsel for the revision petitioners that B. Adinarayana, sole revision petitioner in C.R.P.No.4764 of 2006 and the second revision petitioner in C.R.P.No.4767 of 2006, who was looking after the cases on behalf of the defendants was laid up with illness from 06.06.2005 till 26.07.2005 and that the defendants consequently could not contact their counsel in time to file the appeals. In both the cases, the medical certificate regarding the ill-health of B.Adinarayana was also filed. Indeed, the medical certificate was issued by an R.M.P. doctor. Holding that the appellant was not an inpatient according to the medical certificate, the appellate Court dismissed the limitation petitions and refused to condone the delay. 5. I am afraid that it is not necessary that the party shall be inpatient in a hospital for seeking the indulgence of the Court to condone the delay in filing the appeals. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioner, who was looking after the appeals, was indisposed from 06.06.2005 till 26.07.2005. This contention was fortified by a medical certificate. I, therefore, consider that the revision petitioners have explained the delay in filing the appeal successfully. The appellate Court incorrectly refused to condone the delay. The impugned orders are erroneous as the appellate Court did not apply its mind properly. 5. Where the petitioners explained the delay and ill-health of one of the petitioners, both the revisions are allowed. The delay in filing the appeals is condoned. The appellate Court shall check and number the appeals if they are otherwise in order and proceed further according to law. _______________ K.G. SHANKAR, J Date: 28.01.2011 Isn