HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO C.R.P.No.4203 of 2002 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 15-06- 2001 passed in I.A.No.256 of 2000 in S.R.No.4389 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur. 2. The petitioners herein filed I.A.No.256 of 2000 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 1512 days in re- presenting the suit. The lower Court, after enquiry, dismissed the petition through the impugned order observing that the petitioners failed to satisfy the Court while explaining the inordinate delay in re- presenting the suit. Being aggrieved, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 3. Now the point for consideration is whether there are any bona fides on the part of the petitioners to condone the delay of 1512 days in re-presenting the suit and whether the impugned order is sustainable? 4. As seen from the impugned order, petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are parents-in-law and petitioner No.4 is a minor son of the petitioner No.3. It is the contention of petitioner No.3 that her husband died while in service and they have no means of income to pay the Court fees. It is also noted in the impugned order that the petitioners could not re- present the plaint in time though sufficient opportunity is given to them and there is a delay of 1512 days in re-presenting the plaint. 5. A perusal of the counter filed by both the respondents, it reveals that the suit was originally filed on 20-07-1996 and the petitioners have to pay the Court fees of Rs.3,926/-, but as it was filed with deficit Court fees, the lower court was pleased to grant time to pay the Court fees as per the orders in I.A.No.165 of 1996. The plaint was re-presented by the advocates on 16-08-1996 and it was again returned on 29-08-1996 and thereafter on 18-09-1996 granting time upto 25-09- 1996. Subsequently, the plaint was not re-presented while complying the objections. 6. As seen from the impugned order, the petitioners in the first instance did not state that they were not in a position to pay the Court fees and that the lower Court had taken several objections for compliance, but the petitioners did not re-present the same promptly. Though the petitioners were given opportunity to prosecute the matter, they abandoned the suit and kept silent all these days and failed to file any documentary proof to condone the inordinate delay, and there are n o bona fides on their part. The lower Court well discussed the material on record and correctly dismissed the petition. Therefore, I see no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and the same is sustainable. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the petitioners may take appropriate steps if they are otherwise eligible as per law. No order as to costs. _______________ K.S. APPA RAO, J Date: 25-11-2011 YCR