THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.3670 of 2010 (Dated :04-10-2010) Between: Bodla Ramamurthy and others …Petitioners A n d Voruganti Padma W/o Narayanarao …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.3670 of 2010 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 7.6.2010 passed in I.A.No.1071 of 2005 in an unregistered Appeal Suit of the year 2005 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet, whereby and whereunder, the learned Additional District Judge refused to condone delay of 1009 days in filing appeal against the judgment and decree dated 21.12.2002 passed in O.S.No.1 of 2000 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, at Suryapet. 2. The petitioners are the defendants and the respondent is the plaintiff in O.S.No.1 of 2000. The plaintiff filed the suit for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property and also for mesne profits. The defendants contested the suit. A preliminary decree came to be passed on contest, by judgment dated 21.12.2002. The defendants filed appeal assailing the judgment and decree dated 21.12.2002 passed in O.S.No.1 of 2000. They also moved I.A.No.1071 of 2005 to condone delay of 1009 days in filing the appeal. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation petition that the plaintiff assured the petitioners of her not pressing the suit claim, and therefore, they did not pursue the matter with their counsel. 3. The respondent –plaintiff filed counter resisting the application. 4. The learned Additional District Judge, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, came to the conclusion that the petitioners failed to make out any reasonable grounds for condoning the delay of 1009 days in filing the appeal, and thereby, dismissed the application. Hence, this revision. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the respondent-plaintiff assured the petitioners of her not pressing the claim, and therefore, they did not pursue the matter after disposal of the suit by the trial Court. Subsequently, the respondent-plaintiff has gone back on her promise and filed an application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner, which necessitated the petitioners to file an appeal with a delay condonation petition. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff submits that the petitioners being aware of the judgment passed in the suit did not chose to file appeal within the time. A further submission has been made that the lower appellate Court considered the material brought on record and recorded a finding that the petitioners failed to make out a reasonable ground, and therefore, the order passed by the lower appellate Court does not warrant interference. 8. I have gone through the order impugned in the revision. The petitioners pleaded in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation petition that the respondent-plaintiff assured them of not pressing the claim. The said fact has been denied by the respondent-plaintiff by filing counter. The petitioners did not chose to adduce any evidence to prove that the respondent-plaintiff has assured them of her not pressing the claim. The appellate Court has considered the material brought on record in a right perspective and dismissed the delay condonation application by giving cogent and convincing reasons. The order impugned does not warrant interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.04-10-2010 RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.3670 of 2010 (Dated :04-10-2010)