HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2079 OF 2011 DATE:24-06-2011 BETWEEN Dhulipala Nageswara Rao and others …Petitioners AND Dhulipala Pullaiah (died) and another. …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2079 OF 2011 ORDER: Petitioners-plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S.No.448 of 2001 for partition of the suit schedule property into five equal shares and for allotment of one such share to the plaintiffs and for future profits. The suit was contested by the second defendant-second respondent herein, who claims to have purchased the suit schedule property under a registered sale deed-Ex.B.2, dated 10.8.1992. Whereas the first defendant-first respondent herein, who is the father of the petitioners-plaintiffs executed Ex.B.1- settlement deed in favour of sister of plaintiffs-Inti Rangamma in the year 1984 towards Pasupukunkuma at the time of her marriage. Said Inti Rangamma alienated the said property under Ex.B.2 in favour of second defendant. Though the father of plaintiffs-petitioners herein executed the settlement deed-Ex.B.1 in favour of their sister-Inti Rangamma as early as in 1984 allotting the suit schedule property, the petitioners did not raise their little finger. Further though said Inti Rangamma executed the sale deed in favour of second defendant in the year 1992, the present suit was filed in the year 2001. On dismissal of the suit on 7.12.2005, the petitioners filed an appeal and as there is a delay of 326 days in presenting the appeal, the impugned I.A.No.445 of 2010 is filed for condoning the delay stating that that the petitioners’ advocate informed them that he would intimate the result of the suit and as there was no response, when the petitioners met the advocate in the month of October, 2006 he informed them that he sent a letter intimating the result of the suit, but they did not receive the said letter. It is also stated that the first petitioner fell sick due to jaundice and could not file the appeal in time. The said reasons hardly constitute any ground for condoning the delay and considering the attitude of the petitioners, it can be presumed that they want to keep the litigation alive for ever and that it is a vexatious litigation and therefore, the lower court rightly exercised the discretion in dismissing the impugned I.A. and the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this Court. The revision fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. JUNE 24, 2011 Tsr.