THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3470 of 2010 Dated 20th August, 2010 Between: Sayyada Intiyaz Hussain Basha and others. …Petitioners And Syed Khatib Riazuddin and others. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri G. Venkat Reddy for Sri K. Rathangapani Reddy Counsel for respondents: --- The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioners, who are the legal representatives of the original plaintiff – Sayyada Tajdarunnisa, filed the present civil revision petition against the order dated 17.03.2010 passed in I.A.No.1112 of 2009 in A.S.CFR.No.6172 of 2007 on the file of III Additional District Judge, Kurnool. Petitioner No.1 is the husband of the original plaintiff and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are their sons. The plaintiff filed O.S.No.224 of 1999 in the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandyal, against respondent No.1 for permanent injunction restraining him from trespassing into the plaint schedule property bearing door No.163/19 of Nandyal town. The said suit was dismissed after full dressed trial on 31.08.2004. Nearly three years after dismissal of the suit, the petitioners herein, who claimed to be the legal representatives of the plaintiff, filed an appeal with a delay of 1134 days. Therefore, they have filed I.A.No.1112 of 2009 for condonation of the said delay in filing the appeal. After carefully considering the pleadings and the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners, the Court below has dismissed the said application by the impugned order. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners strongly contended that the Court below did not make proper approach in rejecting the petitioners’ application for condonation of delay. I do not find merit in this submission. As observed by the Court below, while the suit was dismissed on 31.08.2004, the plaintiff died on 26.10.2005 i.e., fourteen months after dismissal of the suit. No reason was stated for the plaintiff not filing the appeal during her lifetime except claiming that she suffered from cancer. Even assuming that the plaintiff was a cancer patient, petitioner No.1, who is her husband and ex- serviceman, was not disabled from filing the appeal. Even after the death of the plaintiff, the appeal was not filed within reasonable time. There was delay of nearly two years after the death of the plaintiff in filing the appeal. These facts clearly establish lack of diligence on the part of the petitioners in pursuing the litigation. The Court below has rightly dismissed the application for condonation of huge delay and I do not find any error in the order under revision. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 20th August, 2010 GHN