THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 218 OF 2007 ORDER: 1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the Order dated 15.09.2006 in I.A. No.191 of 2005 in A.S. No.18 of 1994 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Anantapur, whereunder and whereby application filed by the respondents 1 and 2/appellants under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short, ‘the Act, 1963’) to condone delay of 1994 days in filing the petition for readmitting the appeal, was allowed imposing costs of Rs.1,000/-. 2. The petitioners herein are respondents 2 to 4, and the respondents 1 and 2 herein are petitioners/appellants, and the third respondent herein is the first respondent, before the court below. 3. The brief facts are, the respondents 1 and 2 herein filed Original Suit No.96 of 1984 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Anantapur for eviction and vacant possession of the plaint schedule property. The said suit was dismissed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, they filed Appeal Suit No.18 of 1994 before the I Additional District Judge, Anantapur, which was dismissed for default on 27.01.2000. Thereafter, the present application is filed to condone delay of 1994 days in filing the petition to readmit the appeal and dispose of the matter on merits. The appellate court, accepting the explanation given by the respondents 1 and 2 herein, condoned the delay of 1994 days, by imposing costs. Challenging the same, the present revision is filed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that there is no explanation at all given by the respondents 1 and 2 herein for the abnormal delay of nearly 5 years in filing the application for readmitting the appeal, and that the respondents 1 and 2 were not diligently prosecuting the case, and that, without assigning any reasons, the court below simply condoned the abnormal delay, and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 contended that since advocate appearing for the petitioners herein before the court below died, they were not informed about the posting of the appeal, and that, the first petitioner is aged about 60 years, and that the court below rightly exercised its discretion in allowing the application under Section 5 of the Act to readmit the appeal and the said exercise cannot be shown to be perverse or contrary to law, and hence, he prays to dismiss the revision petition. 6. To condone delay under Section 5 of the Act is the discretion of the Court. However, that discretion has to be exercised in a judicious manner. There was a delay of 1994 days in filing the application to readmit the appeal. It is stated by the respondents 1 and 2 herein, who are petitioners before the court below, in the affidavit filed in support of the application that their advocate one Mr. K.S.Jayaram became sick in the year 1999 and died on 10.01.2000, whereas the appeal was dismissed on 27.01.2000 for default as there was no representation. The explanation given by the first respondent is that the death of her counsel is not known to her and after death of the counsel, clerk of the counsel also died, and that she was under the impression that juniors of Mr. K.S.Jayaram were attending in the matter. Therefore, a proper explanation has been given by the respondents 1 and 2 for the delay and the same is not shown to be incorrect. It seems there was a communication gap between the advocate and the party. Therefore, the court below rightly exercised the discretion and allowed the application, and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. However, considering the abnormal delay, imposing costs of Rs.1,000/- can be said to be on lower side. Hence, the said amount is enhanced to Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand) to be payable to the revision petitioners or on depositing the same in the court below, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In case of deposit of the costs in the court below, the revision petitioners are entitled to withdraw the same without furnishing any security. 7. With the above observation, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. --------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 21.1.2011 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 218 OF 2007 21.1.2011 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 218 OF 2007 21.1.2011 Between: K.Nagesh & others …Petitioners And A.Rudramma & others …Respondents