Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari C.R.P. No. 1600 of 2010 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 3.2.2010 of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, made in I.A. (SR) No. 26155 of 2009 in A.S.SR. No. 14224 of 2009. The petitioners herein are the appellants. They filed the application in I.A.(SR) No. 26155 of 2009 seeking to condone the delay of 12 days in filing the appeal for setting aside the order of the learned Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad passed in O.S. No. 287 of 2007. In the affidavit filed in support of the present application, the G.P.A. holder of the petitioners has stated that as the petitioners are the non-resident Indians, they are being represented by him. He further states that the judgment in O.S. No. 287 of 2007 was pronounced during his stay at Hyderabad and the petitioners herein were declared as the legal heirs of Mir Alam Bahadur; whereas, in O.S No. 3861 of 2004 Humayun Begum, the respondent herein was declared as the successor of Mir Alam Bahadur. The petitioners wanted to prefer an appeal against the said judgment. As the copy of the said judgment and decree was not prepared during his stay at Hyderabad, he could not get the certified copies of the judgment immediately. Thereafter, he went to U.K. on some work and at that time, his counsel had collected the same and faxed a copy of it to him. Thereafter, he instructed his counsel to file an appeal against the order in O.S. No. 287 of 2007 and particularly against that portion of the order in upholding the judgment in O.S. No. 3861 of 2004. Accordingly his counsel had prepared the appeal. However, as there was a delay of 12 days in filing the appeal, he filed the present application seeking to condone the delay before lower appellate Court. The lower appellate Court, through the impugned order dated 3.2.2010 rejected the present I.A. on the ground that the petitioners sought the self- same relief, which was sought in I.A. No. 3060 of 2009. Admittedly, the lower appellate Court dismissed I.A No. 3060 of 2009 on the ground that the Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners has filed the petition instead of the G.P.A. holder. Though the present application is filed for the self same relief, but as the earlier application was not properly filed, they filed the present application through the G.P.A. Holder, seeking to condone the delay explaining the reasons. In such circumstances, the lower appellate Court ought to have passed a speaking order instead of rejecting the application on the ground of maintainability. In the circumstances, I feel it appropriate to direct the lower appellate Court to dispose of the application afresh without being influenced by any of the observations made in the earlier order passed by it in I.A No. 3060 of 2009, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The revision petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ___________________ T. MEENA KUMARI,J Date: 27.4.2010 pnb