THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR C.R.P.No.521 of 2007 Date: 20.12.2010 Between: Burugupalli Subba Rao and another … Petitioners AND Burugupalli Venkateswara Rao (died) And 9 others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR C.R.P. No.521 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioners are the defendants 2 and 7. The suit was laid by the plaintiffs 1 to 4 seeking for partition of the properties. The suit was decreed by the trial Court. The petitioners herein preferred appeal before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kovvur. As there was a delay of 103 days in filing the appeal, the petitioners 1 and 2 filed I.A.No.1146 of 2004 to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Through the impugned order, the learned appellate Judge dismissed the petition to condone the said delay. Hence, the revision. 2. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs pointed out that as there was no stay of the execution of the decree of the trial Court either in the unnumbered appeal or before this Court in the revision, the final decree was passed in the case and the shares were allotted to the parties by meets and bounds. He pointed out that whether the delay is explained or otherwise, reopening the case at this stage would cause injustice to the plaintiffs. 3. The case of the petitioners is that the mother-in-law of the first petitioner/second defendant passed way at about the time of the decree and that consequently the petitioners could not take steps immediately to move the appellate Court by way of an appeal. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs further submitted that the contesting defendants, who are the petitioners herein, did not inform the trial Court at the time of passing of the final decree about the pendency of the revision nor did they move either the trial Court or this Court for stay of the final decree proceedings. His claim is that the petitioners were not only not diligent, but are also interested in procrastinating the case and that their aim in this revision is to protract the proceedings. 4. Where the final decree was already passed and the shares were allotted by meets and bounds, I consider that the plaintiffs would not suffer any inconvenience in the event the delay is condoned. I also agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Courts should be liberal in condoning the delay and more particularly in condoning the delay in filing the appeals. Where the delay was 103 days and explanation is offered for the condonation of the delay, I deem it appropriate to condone the delay in filing the appeal. 5. Accordingly, the civil Revision Petition is allowed and the delay of 103 days in filing of the appeal before the appellate Court is condoned. The appellate Court shall check and number the appeal if it is otherwise in order. No costs. ________________ K.G. SHANKAR, J Date: 20.12.2010 Isn