THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2283 of 2010 ORDER: The respondents filed O.S.No.260 of 1998 in the Court of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur against the petitioner for the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. A preliminary decree was passed in the suit on 03.04.2006. The petitioner presented an appeal before the Court of Principal District Judge, Guntur with a delay of 1356 days. He filed I.A.No.346 of 2010 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act with a prayer to condone that delay. The application was opposed by the respondents. Through its order, dated 15.04.2010, the lower appellate Court dismissed the I.A. Hence, this revision. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The limitation prescribed for preferring appeal before a District Court is 30 days. The petitioner has chosen to present the appeal after more than three years. Very strong, exceptional and believable explanation is needed for condonation of such enormous delay. It is rather interesting, of not intriguing to note the reasons pleaded by the petitioner herein before the lower appellate Court. Para 3 of the affidavit filed by him contains the reasons if at all, and it reads as under: “I further submit that I am suffering with ill-health and I was bed ridden. Moreover, I have no knowledge in legal matters. Due to that there is a delay of 1356 fays occurred in filing the appeal. Except the said reasons there are no other willful default or negligence on my part in this regard. Basing on the aforesaid decree and judgment, the respondents filed I.A.No.1235 of 2006 for grant of final decree and the same is posted to 15.02.2010. As I preferred appeal, it is just and necessary to stay all further proceedings in I.A.No.1235 of 2006 in O.S.No.260 of 1998 till disposal of appeal. The reasons pleaded are general, vague and just irrelevant for the purpose of condoning delay even of few days. The lower appellate Court has discussed the matter at length and expressed the view that it is not satisfied with the explanation offered for the delay. This Court is not inclined to take a different view. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:28.06.2010. kdl