IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH C.R.P. No.5514 of 2010 Between: Kontham Bheemaiah and others … Petitioners And Barla Mallamma … Respondent THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH C.R.P. No.5514 of 2010 ORDER: This revision petition has been filed aggrieved by order dated 17.06.2010 passed in I.A. No.434 of 2009 in U/R Appeal Suit by the District Judge at Karimnagar. The revision petitioners and the respondent are the defendants and the plaintiff, respectively. I.A. No.434 of 2009 was filed by the revision petitioners/defendants under Section 5 of Limitation Act read with XLI Rule 3-A of CPC to condone delay of 498 days in preferring appeal against the decree passed in a partition suit. The reasons shown for occurring such delay are that 1) due to old age, the 1st petitioner and his brother (defendant No.2) were suffering with ailments and unable to move from the village; 2) the other petitioners namely 4 and 5 who were shown added as legal heirs of defendant No.3 their another sister are uneducated; 3) the properties mentioned in the suit schedule are not joint family properties and some of them have already been sold away long back and some exclusively belong to petitioners 4 and 5, the legal heirs of defendant No.3; and 4) they were in good faith that the suit would have been dismissed as their case was meritorious and did not attend the Court and their advocate also did not inform them about passing of the judgment, it is only on receipt of the notice in the final decree application filed by the respondent, they came to know abut passing of judgment against them. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the Court below had rightly considered the reasons shown by the petitioners in condoning the delay. As the I.A. No.434 of 2009 was filed seeking to condone the delay, it is necessarily to be looked into whether the reasons shown by the petitioners to condone the delay are valid or not. It is not the case of the petitioners that they have no knowledge about the suit but contested the matter. The first ground that is taken to condone the delay is that due to old age the 1st petitioner and his brother were suffering with ailments and unable to move from the village may be believed taking into consideration of their age though they have not adduced any documentary evidence but they have many sources to know the result of their case and one of such source is phone, which was not done by the petitioners and there are other petitioners who are quite young. The second ground is that other petitioners namely 4 and 5 who were shown added as legal heirs of defendant No.3 their another sister are uneducated is not at all the valid ground to condone the delay since to pursue and know the result of their case no education is required. Coming to third ground that the properties mentioned in the suit schedule are not joint family properties and some of them have already been sold away long back and some exclusively belong to petitioners 4 and 5, the legal heirs of defendant No.3, is also not a valid ground to condone the delay because whether the property is joint family or not would be decided on merits legally but this ground cannot be taken as valid ground for condoning the delay. Finally, coming to the last ground that they were in good faith that the suit would have been dismissed as their case was meritorious and did not attend the Court and their advocate also did not inform them about passing of the judgment and it is only on receipt of the notice in the final decree application filed by the respondent, they came to know about passing of judgment against them, is also not a valid ground for condoning the delay as it is for the Courts to decide the issue came before it legally and every party of the cases would file the case in good faith that their case is meritorious but ultimately it is for the Courts to decide the issue legally and it is the duty and responsibility of the party to pursue the matter and to know the result and consult the advocate for further course of action, which has not been done by the petitioners in the instant case. It is noticed from the order passed by the Court below that no affidavit of the advocate of them is filed to consider another ground that their advocate did not inform them about passing of the decree. Further, at least for considering as valid ground that they came to know about passing of preliminary decree only after receipt of notice in the final decree petition, no particulars have been given as on which date they have received the notice in final decree partition etc. In view of the above, the petitioners have failed to show the sufficient cause for occurring delay and it cannot be said that the Court below had not properly considered the issue and dismissed the I.A. No.434 of 2009. Therefore, I am of the view that the Court below had properly considered the issue and had rightly dismissed the said I.A., which does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference of this Court and this revision petition is liable to be dismissed. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons discussed herein above, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 13.12.2010 LSK