THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1482 of 2011 Date:21.04.2011 Between: Battula Savitramma and others ..... Petitioners AND Jinaga Nageswara Rao .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri P.Ponna Rao, for Sri K.S.Murthy Counsel for Respondents: The Court made the following: ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition arises out of the order dated 25.06.2010 in I.A.No.1116 of 2006 in A.S.No…./2006 (GR No.2994/2005 dated 27.04.2005) on the file of the learned District Judge, Srikakulam. The respondents have filed O.S.No.78 of 1996 in the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sompeta, against Battula Savitramma and two others (petitioner Nos.2 and 3) for recovery of certain amounts. The suit was decreed by judgment and decree dated 02.08.2003. Savitramma and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 filed an appeal against the said judgment and decree with a delay of 583 days. They have filed I.A.No.1116 of 2006 seeking condonation of delay. During the pendency of the said application, Savitramma died and petitioner Nos.4 and 5 are added as her L.Rs. in pursuance of order dated 09.06.2009 in I.A.No.964 of 2009. In support of the application for condonation of delay, Savitramma filed an affidavit, wherein she has stated that the suit was decreed on 02.08.2003 and she was informed about the said fact on 08.08.2003 by her Advocate, that on her instructions, the Advocate has applied for a copy and the judgment and decree were made ready by 26.08.2003, that the appeal had to be filed on or before 21.09.2003 but as she has suffered from severe viral fever for two months and as her son – petitioner No.3, being a petty vendor, who does business in Kolkata and Ichapuram, was away at Kolkata, the appeal could not be filed within the period of limitation. She further averred that in the second week of December, 2003 when petitioner No.3 came to Ichapuram from Kolkata, she informed the latter about the decree, that he cold not contact the counsel immediately and that petitioner No.3 again went back to Kolkata and returned to Ichapuram in the first week of April, 2004. It is also averred that thereafter, petitioner No.3 has contacted the counsel and got the copies of judgment and decree by 15.04.2004, that in the meantime, his son suffered from jaundice and that after recovery from his illness, he handed over the case to Sri K.S.Murthy, Advocate at Hyderabad for filing appeal, that after the last week of July, 2004, they were informed by the counsel at Hyderabad that the appeal had to be filed at Srikakulam District Court and that after taking return of the bundle, the appeal was filed in the District Court, Srikakulam, with a delay of 583 days. On considering the explanation offered by the deceased – defendant No.1, the lower appellate Court has dismissed the application by holding that no satisfactory explanation was offered for condonation of the huge delay. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners stated that due to the reasons beyond the control of the petitioners, the appeal could not be filed in time and that the lower appellate Court has failed to consider the explanation offered by the petitioners from proper perspective. On a careful consideration of the explanation offered by the deceased – defendant No.1, I am of the view that the lower appellate Court is justified in holding that the petitioners failed to assign convincing reasons for condonation of a long delay of 583 days. In the first place, on the own admission of the deceased – defendant No.1, she had knowledge of the decree dated 02.08.2003 within five days of its passing and even her son, who is stated to have been pursuing the case, was clearly informed of the same when he allegedly returned to Ichapuram from Kolkata in December, 2003. Despite having such information, petitioner No.3 again went back to Kolkata and returned to Ichapuram only in the first week of April, 2004. This clearly shows that petitioner No.3 had not shown any diligence whatsoever in prosecuting the case. The sickness of Smt. Savitramma besides being unsupported by any medical evidence, has no relevance whatsoever because even according to her, it is only her son – petitioner No.3, who is looking after the case. He has not filed any affidavit to explain the reasons for his failure to file the appeal within the period of limitation or within the reasonable period thereafter. His non-filing of the affidavit is fatal to the case. On a careful consideration of the entire facts, I am of the opinion that the petitioners failed to offer convincing reasons for condonation of the long delay of 583 days in filing the appeal. For the aforementioned reasons, the Civil Revision Petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the C.R.P., C.R.P.M.P.No.2108 of 2011 is dismissed as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 21st April, 2011 GHN