THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.210 OF 2007 DATED: 18-03-2011 Between: M/s Jayalakshmi Mineral & Chemicals, Rep.by its Managing Partner, Piduguralla, Guntur District. .... PETITIONER And The Tamilnadu Co-operative Sugar Federation, Rep.by its Special Officer, Handanam, Chennai & another. .... RESPONDENTS ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 17.11.2006, in I.A.No.2247 of 2006 in un- numbered Appeal Suit of 2006 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Guntur, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 79 days in filing the appeal, was dismissed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared for the respondents though served with notices. Perused the record. 3. Petitioner herein filed O.S.No.106 of 2003 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gurazala for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,17,500/- from the defendants. Respondents-defendants filed written statement contesting the suit. After framing of the issues the trial was conducted. P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A12 were marked on behalf of the plaintiff and D.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B5 were marked on behalf of the defendants. On conclusion of the trial, the suit was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed appeal before the learned District Judge, Guntur. As there was a delay of 79 days in preferring the appeal, I.A.No.2247 of 2006 was filed for condonation of the same under Section 5 of the limitation Act. 4. According to the petitioner, the appeal could not be filed in time as the Managing partner of the petitioner firm was held up in Karnataka at the relevant time in connection with his business. The learned District Judge dismissed the application observing that the petitioner gave more importance to his business than preferring the appeal. It is to be seen that the petitioner is a firm doing business. The main avocation of the petitioner is doing business. The litigation is incidental inasmuch as the suit came to be filed in connection with such business transactions carried on with the defendants. The delay in filing the appeal is only 79 days. The reason mentioned in the affidavit, filed in support of the application, is that because the Managing partner was held up in Karnataka in connection with the business, the appeal could not be filed in time. There is absolutely no reason to disbelieve the same inasmuch as the petitioner would not stand to gain by deliberately delaying the filing of the appeal. 5. Having regard to the fact that the delay is only 79 days, it is considered that the petitioner can be afforded an opportunity to exercise his statutory right of preferring an appeal by condoning the said delay. The impugned order is therefore held unsustainable and the same is accordingly set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.2247 of 2006 stands allowed and the delay of 79 days in filing the appeal stands condoned. The appeal may be registered, if otherwise in order. 6. Accordingly, Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 18th March, 2011. Tsy