IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI C.R.P. NO :5064 of 2007 Between: B. Gyan Prakash ..... PETITIONER AND 1. Secunderabad Contonment rep., by its Executive Officer, Secunderabad Court Premises, Secunderabad and others. .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:5064 OF 2007 ORDER: Aggrieved by the order of the learned I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, made in I.A.No.4143 of 2006 in ASSR No.11164 of 2006, dated 12.09.2007, the present civil revision petition has been preferred. The petitioner herein is the appellant before the lower appellate Court. He filed the aforementioned application before the lower appellate Court seeking to condone the delay of 148 days in filing the appeal. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the petitioner has stated though he got the certified copies of judgment and decree, the same were misplaced in his house and therefore he could not file the appeal in time. While opposing the petition, the 3rd respondent filed a counter affidavit before the lower appellate Court stating that there is no truth in the statement of the petitioner that he misplaced the bundle and could not trace out the same for a period of 148 days. The petitioner filed the present I.A. with a view to protract the litigation and harass the respondents, who are senior citizens. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the explanation offered by the petitioner, the lower appellate Court opined that the petitioner and his advocate knew that the appeal has to be preferred within time. Further when his advocate knew that the certified copies of the judgment were misplaced, he ought to have filed a fresh copy application to get the certified copies and the petitioner ought not have waited till the certified copies are traced out. The learned judge further observed that the petitioner has invented a theory of misplacing of certified copies of judgment and decree in order to cover up his laches and thus failed to explain the delay, much less the day to day delay in preferring the appeal. He, accordingly dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present revision. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. The suit in O.S. No. 1011/2001 was dismissed by the trial Court on 28.3.2006 and the petitioner obtained the certified copies of the said judgment and decree on 9.6.2006. As there is a delay in filing the appeal, he filed the impugned I.A. seeking to condone the delay. The only reason assigned by the petitioner for condoning the delay is that though he got the certified copies of judgment and decree in the aforementioned suit on 9.6.2006, he misplaced the same in his house and could not trace out the same within time. If the petitioner was diligent enough in prosecuting the matter, he ought to have applied for fresh certified copies of the judgment and decree and he ought not to have waited till they are traced out. There is certain limitation in the statute for filing the appeals and the parties cannot be permitted to approach the Courts as per their convenience, without any sufficient cause. Further, the petitioner except stating that the certified copies were misplaced, did not assign any other reason or sufficient cause for condoning the delay. In such circumstances, the lower appellate Court was justified in dismissing the I.A. Hence, I am of the view that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference of this Court. The revision petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari Date: 22nd January, 2010 Pnb. HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:5064 OF 2007 22.01.2010