IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.2872 OF 2002 AND C.R.P.No.5309 OF 2003 Date:04.02.2011 Between:- C.M.A.No.2872 OF 2002 Nunna Vamsi Krishna ..Appellant/Petitioner And Yellamanchilli Venku Naidu and two others .. Respondents/Respondents And C.R.P.No.5309 OF 2003 Nunna Vamsi Krishna ..Petitioner/Petitioner And Yellamanchilli Venku Naidu and two others .. Respondents/Respondents COMMON JUDGMENT:- The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘C.P.C.’) is directed against the docket order dated 27-08-2002 in I.A.No.1549 of 2002 in I.A.No.121 of 2002 in M.O.P.No.203 of 2000 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam, whereunder and whereby, the petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 56 days in filing the petition, under Order IX Rule 9 C.P.C., to restore I.A.No.121 of 2002, was dismissed. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed. The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the docket order dated 18.03.2002 in I.A.No.121 of 2001 in M.O.P.No.203 of 2000 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge at Visakhapatnam, whereunder and whereby, the petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 193 days in filing the petition, under Order IX Rule 9 C.P.C., was dismissed. Original Petition is filed by minor petitioner represented by father seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by petitioner. That petition was dismissed for not paying process to respondents 1 and 2. Then the guardian of petitioner filed an application to set aside the dismissal order dated 03-01-2001. That petition was dismissed. The reason given by the guardian and father of petitioner for not paying batta was that he fell sick and could not contact his advocate. Even though it is a proper explanation for not prosecuting the petitioner and even assuming that there are latches on the part of guardian and father, the minor petitioner cannot be made to suffer. For no fault of minor, he can be deprived of compensation if he is otherwise entitled for the same. The respondents did not file any counter in the trial Court. Therefore, the trial Court ought to have allowed the petition. Hence, the delay is condoned. In view of the fact that the O.P. is of the year 2000 and the appellant has not evinced interest to prosecute the case, it is made clear that the appellant is not entitled to any interest on the Award, if any, that may be granted by the trial Court. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. Consequently, in view of the fact that the delay of 56 days in filing the petition under Order IX Rule 9 C.P.C. is allowed as proper explanation is given, the Civil Revision Petition is also allowed. No costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 4th February, 2011 AMD