IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Revision Petition No.6006 of 2010 Between: Guda Venkata Koteswara Rao .. Petitioner AND Kotha Venkata Lakshmamma .. Respondent ORDER: Heard Sri G.L. Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Smt. N. Shoba, learned counsel for the respondent. I.A.No.1058 of 2008 in O.S.No.42 of 2008 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda, was with a request to condone the delay of 26 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree dated 5-6-2008. The petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was considered by the trial Court and it was ordered on 8-7-2010 that the delay can be condoned by imposing costs of Rs.10/- per day and accordingly, the petition was allowed conditionally on making such payment on or before 16-07-2010 failing which the petition was directed to stand dismissed. Again on 19-07-2010, the trial Court recorded that costs were not paid till 4-45 P.M. in spite of a request for a pass over by the advocate for the petitioner earlier and as the conditional order was not complied with, the petition was dismissed. The revision petitioner contends herein that the trial Court should have granted one more opportunity to him to remit the costs and it should have ascertained the reason as to under what circumstances the costs were not paid. He also contended that the trial Court should have imposed some more costs and should not have penalized him. The only point for consideration is whether there is any absence of justification for the order of dismissal by the trial Court? Though the affidavit of the petitioner in support of the application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act did not appear to have been accompanied with the affidavit of any doctor or any medical certificate about the high fever which prevented the revision petitioner from appearing before the Court on the relevant date, still the trial Court was considerate enough in directing condonation of delay on payment of costs and fixed a date for such payment. The conditional order appeared to have not been complied with either by 16-07-2010, the date originally fixed or by 19-07-2010, on which date the petition was dismissed for non-compliance with the conditional order. The conditional order passed works itself out and the only way by which the time fixed by the Court could have been requested to be extended is by the revision petitioner filing an appropriate application under Section 148 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for extension of time fixed by the Court. No such effort was obviously made by the revision petitioner and his attempt to canvass that the trial Court is duty bound to give one more opportunity or to impose further costs or to inquire into the circumstances under which the costs were not paid is but illogical and untenable. There are absolutely no merits in the revision petition and it is accordingly dismissed without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 04-03-2011 Ksn