HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P. No.3025 OF 2009 DATED: 18-09-2009 BETWEEN: Bhavaraju Venkatasurya Balarama Row …Petitioner AND Bhavaraju Venkata Surya Satya Purushothama Rao & Others …Respondents This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P. No.3025 OF 2009 ORDER: Petitioner, who is 3rd respondent in the final decree proceedings and 3rd defendant in O.S.No.238 of 1978 filed this revision against the order dated 21.1.2009 dismissing I.A.No.1140 of 2008 filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay of 63 days in filing the petition to review the order passed in I.A.No.657 of 2007 in I.A.No.1431 of 1981 in O.S.No.238 of 1978, dated 14.2.2008. Originally, the petitioner herein filed I.A.No.657 of 2007 seeking permission of the Court to deposit the value of Ac.2.00 cents of wet land situated in Sy.No.33/1 of Medaline Village of Kakinada Urban Mandal. The lower Court dismissed the said I.A. on the ground that the petitioner failed to enclose the valuation certificate issued by the Sub-Registrar, Kakinada along with the application. On obtaining the said valuation certificate from the Sub-Registrar, Kakinada, the petitioner filed another I.A. to review the order passed in I.A.No.657 of 2007 and since there is a delay of 63 days in filing that petition, the impugned I.A.No.1140 of 2008 came to be filed. The lower Court by the impugned order dismissed I.A.No.1140 of 2008 only on the ground that the affidavit filed in support of the petition is silent as to the date on which, he approached his advocate at Hyderabad, and that there are no particulars on which date he applied for certified copy and on which date it was furnished to him, and that in the absence of any specific dates in the affidavit, it is difficult to calculate the actual delay that was caused in the matter. It was also observed that on 14.2.2008, orders were passed in I.A.No.657 of 2007 and whereas, the petitioner obtained the valuation certificate on 14.3.2008, but the petition was filed on 9.6.2008 and therefore, the petitioner failed to explain the delay of about 11 weeks for not filing review petition immediately after obtaining the valuation certificate. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri E.V.V.S. Ravi Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Perused the material available on record. It is not in dispute that this Court in C.R.P.No.5690 of 2004 by order dated 27.1.2005 observed that the respondents to pay the value of the property as per the final decree proceedings. It is in that view of the matter, the petitioner came forward to deposit the value of the property in the final decree proceedings and that the lower Court ought to have given an opportunity to the petitioner in that regard. The aspect as to whether the petitioner can offer the value of the property or not can be gone into only in I.A.No.657 of 2007, which was filed for that purpose. In the circumstances, I am inclined to condone the delay of 63 days in filing the petition on certain terms. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and I.A.No.1140 of 2008 is allowed on condition of petitioner paying costs of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) to the petitioners in the final decree proceedings in the suit within three weeks from today or can deposit the same into the Court to the credit of the suit. In default of payment of costs, I.A.No.1140 of 2008 stands dismissed. The revision is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. SEPTEMBER 18, 2009 Note: Office to furnish the copy within one week. (B/o) Tsr.