THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CIVIL REVITION PETITION No.4425 of 2010 ORDER: E.A.No.101 of 2010 in E.A.No.122 of 2006 in E.P.No.5 of 2005 in O.S.No.402 of 2003 was rejected by the Court below, by the order dated 21.07.2010. E.A.No.101 of 2010 is an application filed by the revision petitioner, seeking condonation of a delay of 68 days in filing an application to set aside the default order dated 29.12.2009. The revision petitioner filed E.A.No.122 of 2006 as a claim petition in E.P.No.5 of 2005 filed by the 1st respondent herein, for execution of the decree in O.S.No.402 of 2003, claiming to have purchased 5/6th share of the E.P. schedule property prior to its attachment in the suit. The claim petition in E.P.No.122 of 2006 was listed on 29.12.2009 for cross-examination of the revision petitioner on payment of costs, but he neither appeared nor paid the costs. Hence, the claim petition was dismissed on 29.12.2009. The revision petitioner filed an application to set aside the default order along with an application to condone the delay of 68 days in filing the application to set aside the default order. This application was dismissed by the order impugned. In the affidavit filed in support of this application, no explanation is setout for the delay, except a vague averment he could not file the application within time on account of ill-health. The Court below rejected the application on the ground that no reasons are setout nor is the delay of 68 days explained. Though this Court finds no error in the appreciation of the relevant facts or in the discretion exercised by the Court below, the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Subba Reddy pleads that the petitioner be afforded one more opportunity for pursuing his claim petition on merits. The learned counsel undertakes to compensate the 1st respondent/decree holder for the injury caused by the petitioner’s negligence in pursuing his claim petition diligently. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to allow the revision on condition that the revision petitioner pays a sum of Rs.2,500/- to the 1st respondent/decree holder within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The revision petitioner shall obtain a receipt in acknowledgement of the payment from the 1st respondent-decree holder and present it before the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram. On such production, E.A.No.101 of 2010 seeking condonation of the 68 days delay shall be considered as having been allowed and the petitioner permitted to proceed with the adjudication of his claim petition on merits. In default of such payment, this revision shall stand dismissed. The Court below shall expeditiously proceed to determine the claim petition in E.A.No.122 of 2006 and if the petitioner fails to appear at any hearing of the claim petition, the Court below shall consider it appropriate to dismiss the claim petition for default. The Court below shall consider disposing of the claim petition expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. __________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 04.03.2011 v v