HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P. No.4196 of 2008 Dated 24-11-2010 Between: Radi Durgalu. …Petitioner. And: Kolisi Mary and others. …Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P. No.4196 of 2008 ORDER: Petitioners who suffered a decree of injunction in O.S.No.728 of 1998 had sought to file a regular appeal against the said decree before the learned appellate court in the year 2006 by filing an application seeking condonation of six years and 69 days in presentation of the appeal. The said application was rejected by the court below. Hence, this revision. 1) Heard Mr.P.Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. P.Rajasekhar, learned counsel for the respondents. 2) While learned counsel for the petitioners has very strenuously argued and his more than one submissions for liberally considering the application for condonation by imposing heavy costs. However I am not persuaded to agree with him as the learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes those contentions. 3) The affidavit filed in support of the application states that there were medical problems in the family which is sought to be supported by medical record. The affidavit also says that on account of death of some of the family members and problems in the family; arising out of ill-health of 4th defendant and the mother of the petitioners, the appeal could not be filed though the suit was decreed on contest on 31-7- 2002. 4) A detailed counter-affidavit is filed by the contesting respondents denying any sufficiency of cause by pointing out that after the decree, when the same was violated by the petitioners, the respondents filed E.P.No.125 of 2003 before the executing court. In the said E.P., defendants examined themselves and contested the E.P. in the year 2005. It is also stated that the grounds of medical problems of the family members and death in the family are mentioned as a ground for seeking condonation. Petitioners 1 to 4 are alleged to be hale and healthy, carrying on their business or profession for a long number of years without any interruption. It is therefore contended that the petitioners though are busy with their avocations and have failed to take proper steps for filing of appeal during the last six years, cannot be allowed to now file an appeal with more than six years delay and seek condonation of delay. 5) The length of the delay undoubtedly is not the criteria but the sufficiency of cause was to be made out by the petitioners. Not only there is no reason mentioned as to why petitioners could not go to a counsel for the purpose of filing appeal, on the contrary the petitioners have contested execution proceedings by examining themselves as J.Drs. and the said execution proceedings came up to this court in C.R.P.No.454 of 2005 and was remitted thereafter for further enquiry. During the pendency of the execution proceeding before the court below and the said C.R.P. before this court, the petitioners have never attempted to contest or file the present appeal, if really they were aggrieved by the decree. Thus, it is evident that petitioners contested the execution proceedings accepting the decree, but now want to question the decree by filing an appeal at a belated stage with an application for condonation of delay of over six years. The specific averment of the respondents that petitioners 1 to 4 are busy with their avocations was not controverted by filing reply affidavit. The court below therefore was justified in declining to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioners. I am unable to see any error in the impugned order. The Revision petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _____________________________________ JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR Dated 24-11-2010 Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P. No.4196 of 2008 Dated 24-11-2010