THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRP No.3721/2009 Dt.13-08-2009 1. Mirthipati Bramaramba and others ..Petitioners V. 1. Poodi Achari and others ..Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRP No.3721/2009 ORAL ORDER This is defendants’ (appellants) revision against the dismissal of IA No.783/2007 in ASSR No.4609/2007 field for condoning the delay of 28 days in preferring appeal against the judgment and decree dt. 4-6-2007 passed in OS No.583/2002 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram, by order of the Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram dt. 5-8-2008. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners/appellants/defendants. R-1 is served. R-2 and R-3 refused to receive notice as per postal endorsement, therefore, it amounts to deemed service. In spite of receipt of notice, they have not chosen to put up their appearance. The first respondent/plaintiff filed the above suit for declaration of his right, title, interest and joint possession of the half share in 1/5th share of plaint schedule property and for right of easement of way to reach the house from main road for ingress and egress, and for consequential mandatory injunction and also permanent injunction; and obtained a decree in so far as his share and permanent injunction. Aggrieved by the same, the first defendant being an old lady of 70 years and defendants 2 to 4 who are her children filed the appeal ASSR No.4609/2007. Since there is a delay of 28 days in preferring the appeal, IA No.783/2007 was filed for condoning the said delay stating that the advocate represented them in the trial court failed to file a copy application immediately on passing the judgment on 4-6-2007; copy application as such was filed on 22-6-2007 and it was made ready on 3-7-2007. On obtaining the same, the advocate sent a word to D-1, who in turn requested her sons, who are residing at Visakhapatnam on their employment, to solve the matter, hence, there occurred 28 days delay in preferring the appeal. Further, it was stated that the trial court ought to have seen that the plaintiff and his brother have no necessity to use the way to reach the main road and if they are allowed to use the way, their right of privacy is being affected as all the main doors of their house are opening into the said way. The lower appellate court dismissed IA holding on the ground that the defendants failed to show sufficient cause except stating that advocate had no knowledge about the date of pronouncement of the judgment and there was delay in obtaining certified copy of the judgment Having regard to the fact that valuable rights of the parties are involved and non-consideration of the fact of D-1 being an old lady of 70 years and other defendants who are at Visakhapatnam on their employment properly, the lower appellate court ought to have condoned the delay, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set- aside, and it is accordingly set-aside. Consequently, IA No.783/2007 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram shall stand allowed on petitioners/appellants/defendants paying costs of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) to the District Legal Services Authority, Kakinada within three weeks from to-day. In default, the revision shall stand dismissed. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed. ______________ A.GOPAL REDDY,J Dt.13-9-2009 kmr