THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2040 of 2002 ORDER: 1 Being aggrieved by the order dated 03.12.2001 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram in I.A.No.255 of 2000 in O.S.No.164 of 1980, the petitioner/plaintiff filed the present revision. 2 Petitioner is plaintiff in O.S.No.164 of 1980. As seen from the record, the revision petitioner / plaintiff – Bank filed the suit for recovery of amount on the foot of an equitable mortgage and after due enquiry and full fledged trial, the trial court passed a preliminary decree on 03.04.1982 against all the defendants except defendants 3 and 6. As against the said preliminary decree, the plaintiff bank preferred an appeal before this Court but the same was also dismissed up holding the judgment and decree of the lower court in dismissing the suit against the respondents 3 and 6. The revision petitioner herein earlier filed I.A.No.254 of 2000 in the very same suit against the orders dismissing the application for condonation of delay of 414 days in filing an application for passing of the final decree. The said application was dismissed holding that no proper explanation was offered for condonation of the delay. However, the orders in the said I.A.No.254 of 2000 were set aside as per orders dated 17.06.2011 in CRP No.495 of 2003. The present petition is filed consequent to the said I.A.No.254 of 2000. 3 As seen from the impugned order, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram dismissed the present petition under revision mainly on the ground that the earlier petition i.e. I.A.No.254 of 2000 filed by the plaintiff - bank under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of 414 days was dismissed. As stated already, the orders passed by the trial court in I.A.No.254 of 2000 were set aside by this court in CRP No.495 of 2003 dated 17.6.2011 condoning the delay in filing the petition to pass a final decree. The present revision petition was filed against the order passed in I.A.No.255 of 2000 filed under Order XXII Rule 4 and Section 151 CPC read with Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice. 4 The learned counsel for the revision petitioner mainly urged that the court below failed to appreciate that it was a suit based on an equitable mortgage and that as the court initially passed a preliminary decree, under Order 34 Rule 5 and Section 151 CPC the further proceedings such as passing of final decree and sale of mortgaged property are based. 5 Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the trial court is sustainable? 6 The revision petitioner herein filed I.A.No.254 of 2000 and 255 of 2000 in O.S.No.164 of 2000 to condone the delay and to amend the final decree petition respectively. Unless I.A.No.254 of 2000 filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed, the question of granting relief in I.A.No.255 of 2000 does not arise. On challenge before this court, this court while setting aside the order passed by the trial court in I.A.No.254 of 2000, by its order dated 17.06.2011 in CRP No.495 of 2003, condoned the delay of 414 days in filing the petition under section 5 of the Limitation Act for passing final decree. As seen from the order in CRP No.495of 2003, it is clearly observed by this court that after condonation of the delay, the application for passing of final decree has to be numbered and it relates back to the filing of the date of application and from that day onwards the consequential procedure has to be followed by the lower court. 7 Therefore, in view of the findings of this court in CRP No.495 of 2003, consequential orders shall be followed. 8 Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order of the trial court in I.A.No.255 of 2000 dated 03.12.2001 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the trial court for adjudication in view of the order in CRP No.495 of 2003 dated 17.06.2011. No costs. --------------------- K.S. APPA RAO, J. 30.09.2011 Kvsn