IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3808 of 2010 Between: Chilukuri Sathi Reddy and others ... PETITIONERS a n d M/s.Laxmi Sai Auto Finance, Chandur, rep. by its Managing Partner Gattu Krishnaiah … RESPONDENT ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 19-11-2009 passed in I.A.No.2316 of 2007 in an un-registered appeal on the file of the Principal District Judge, Nalgonda, whereby and whereunder the learned District Judge dismissed the application refusing to condone the delay of 1342 days in filing the appeal. 2. The petitioners herein are the defendants and whereas the respondent is the plaintiff in O.S.No.72 of 2002. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs.4,77,000/- basing on a promissory note executed by the defendants. The defendants contested the suit and ultimately the suit ended in decree on 22-12-2003. The defendants filed the appeal assailing the judgment and decree dated 22-12-2003 passed in O.S.No.72 of 2002 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda. Along with appeal they also filed I.A.No.2316 of 2007 under Order XLI Rule 3 (A) of the Code of Civil Procedure to condone delay of 1342 days in filing the appeal. 3. The plaintiff filed counter resisting the application. The learned District Judge, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, came to the conclusion that the defendants failed to offer any sufficient reasons to condone the delay of 1342 days in filing the appeal and thereby dismissed the application by order dated 19-11-2009. Hence, this petition. 4. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 16-07-2010. Respondent/plaintiff entered appearance through counsel. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioner could not file the appeal within time for want of legal knowledge and thereby delay occurred. 7. The same contention has been advanced before the trial Court. The trial Court having noticed the fact of the petitioners entering appearance in Execution Petition on 21-06-2005 came to the conclusion that they cannot be permitted to contend that they could not file the appeal for want of legal knowledge. The plaintiff filed E.P.No.60 of 2005 for realization of the decretal amount. The petitioners received summons in E.P., but they did not choose to file the appeal atleast after receiving notices in Execution Petition. After laps of nearly 1342 days, they chose to file an appeal along with delay condonation petition. 8. The petitioners failed to offer sufficient reasons to condone the delay of 1342 days in filing the appeal. I do not see any illegality or irregularity warranting interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Section 115 of Cr.P.C., in the order impugned in the revision. 9. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J October 22, 2010. PN THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3808 of 2010 October 22, 2010