IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND NINE CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5181 of 2009 Between: Mudragada Jayabharathi, W/o. Late Naga Bhujanga Rao, Aged 53 yrs, R/o.9-5-53/1, Shivajipalem, Visakhapatnam. … Petitioner And Duddupudi Annapurna, W/o. Srinivasa Rao, Hindu, Aged 40 yrs, House Wife, R/o. Dasannapeta, Vizianagaram. … Respondent Counsel for the petitioner : Sri V.V.N. Narasimha This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITON No.5181 of 2009 ORDER:- This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order dated 29.07.2009 in I.A.No.425 of 2007 in A.S.S.R.No.2127 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam. The petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.67 of 1995, which was decreed against her by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam on 24.02.2003. She filed appeal against the said judgment and decree. Along with the said appeal, the petitioner filed I.A.No.425 of 2007 to condone the delay of 1421 days in filing the appeal. The said application was dismissed by the learned Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam, observing that it is difficult to believe that the petitioner had no knowledge of passing of the judgment and decree and that the reasons given for condonation of delay are vague and unconvincing, as she failed to adduce any evidence in proof of her illness. Questioning the said order, the petitioner filed the instant revision petition. At the hearing, Sri V.V.N. Narasimham, learned counsel for the petitioner, strenuously contended that in connected cases the Court below has condoned the delay. A careful perusal of the reasons given by the petitioner in her affidavit filed in support of the application filed for condonation of delay reveals that she was not diligent in pursuing her case. Admittedly, the suit was disposed of on 24.02.2003. The petitioner pleaded that after the demise of her husband, she developed blood pleasure and thyroid goitre and because of her ill- health and due to other problems, she stayed at her native place from August, 2000. She further pleaded that only after receiving the notice in E.P.No.123 of 2005 in January, 2006, she came to know about the passing of the decree and that she has engaged a new counsel and obtained certified copies of judgment and decree only on 24.04.2006. She further pleaded that again from the month of March, 2006, she fell seriously ill and therefore the delay of 1421 days has occurred in filing the appeal. As observed by the Court below, the petitioner failed to produce any evidence to show that she was ill. At least after she allegedly came to know about passing of the decree on 24.04.2006, the petitioner has not taken steps to file the appeal. As the petitioner could not substantiate the reasons adduced for inordinate delay in filing the appeal by producing any evidence whatsoever, I do not find any illegality in the order of the Court below in refusing to condone the delay. With regard to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in similar cases the Court below has condoned the delay, such a contention cannot be accepted because, the petitioner did not produce any material to show that the reasons given in other cases are also similar. At any rate, even if a wrong order was passed in an other case, that would not be a ground for the petitioner to succeed in the present case as she failed to offer proper explanation. For the abovementioned reasons, the civil revision petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the revision petition, CRPMP.No.7100 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 20.11.2009 ES