THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.5063 and 5434 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: As the parties are common in both the Civil Revision Petitions, they are heard together and being disposed of by this common order. Petitioners herein filed O.S.No.138 of 1993 for injunction and the third respondent in C.R.P.No.5063 of 2011 filed O.S.No.66 of 1994 for declaration and injunction with regard to the same suit schedule properties. Both the suits were clubbed and disposed of by a common judgment as early as on 08.03.2004, by dismissing the suit filed by the petitioners and partly decreeing the suit filed by the third respondent. As against the said common judgment, the petitioners have filed A.S. (SR).No.4425 and 4426 of 2010 along with I.A.Nos.1233 and 1232 of 2010, respectively, to condone the delay of 2321 days i.e. nearly 6½ years, before the learned Principal District Judge, Warangal. The Court below by orders, dated 02.07.2011 rejected I.A.Nos.1233 and 1232 of 2010 filed by the petitioners under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. In these Civil Revision Petitions, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in spite of sufficient cause is shown explaining the delay, the Court below has erroneously rejected I.A.Nos.1233 and 1232 of 2010 by the impugned orders. It is submitted that if delay is not condoned, the petitioners are put to irreparable loss and injury. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgment of Allahabad High Court in the case of SMT.MALTI DEVI v. HON’BLE BOARD OF REVENUE, UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS[1]. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the affidavits filed in support of I.A.Nos.1233 and 1232 of 2010 before the Court below. In the said affidavits, abnormal delay is sought to be explained by the petitioners by stating that they have engaged one J.Satyanarayana Murthy, Advocate in the lower Court and after dismissal of one suit and partly decreeing another suit, they have instructed him to file appeals and when the Advocate was enquired into, it was stated that the appeals were filed in time. But, recently, they came to know that the appeals were not filed, as such, they have engaged another Advocate and filed appeals. Except vague reasoning, no sufficient reason is shown explaining the delay caused in filing the appeals. The delay is properly explained or not is a matter, which has to be considered with reference to the facts of each case. When there is abnormal delay of 2321 days i.e. nearly 6½ years, unless there is valid and prospective explanation, such abnormal delay cannot be condoned. The afore-cited judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners would not render any assistance to the case of the petitioners, having regard to the facts and circumstances and the contents of the affidavits filed by them to explain the delay. For the aforesaid reasons, as the delay is not properly explained by the petitioners, I do not find any illegality, which warrants interference in the impugned orders passed by the Court below, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Civil Revision Petitions are devoid of merit and are accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 26th DECEMBER, 2011. kvni [1] AIR 1995 ALLAHABAD 26