HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2843 OF 2011 DATE:05-08-2011 BETWEEN Vadi Chandraiah and others …Petitioners AND Kuppala Nagulu and others …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2843 OF 2011 ORDER: Petitioners-plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.472 of 2001 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Bantumilli for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. On dismissal of the suit by judgment and decree dated 5.7.2004, they preferred an unnumbered appeal of 2008 before the District Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam. The said appeal was returned on 22.9.2004 with some office objections and the same was re-presented with the impugned I.A.No.376 of 2008 to condone the delay of 1491 days in re-presenting the appeal. Respondents 1, 2 and 6 were set ex parte and the counsel for respondents 3 to 5 reported no counter. Whereas 7th respondent contested the matter stating that earlier respondent No.6 filed a suit in O.S.No.24 of 1999 against the petitioners herein and the petitioners having received the suit summons kept quiet and they were set ex parte and the suit was decreed. Later respondent No.6 filed E.P.No.77 of 1999 for sale of the suit schedule property, in which also the petitioners received the summons but not contested the proceedings. The Court conducted auction with regard to the schedule property on 24.1.2000 and declared the 7th respondent as successful bidder and also issued sale certificate in his favour on 5.5.2000. Even at the time of delivery of possession of the property, there was no resistance from the petitioners. Thus the petitioners have not preferred any appeal against the judgment made in O.S.No.24 of 1999 and have not filed any appeal against the sale and sale certificate in E.P.No.77 of 1999 till date and therefore, the present suit is barred by limitation and that the present appeal is re-presented with abnormal delay and therefore, the delay in re-presenting the appeal cannot be condoned. Whereas it is the case of the petitioners that when the appeal was returned with some objections, the record was available with their previous counsel Sri S.Brahmaji and the same was mixed up with other papers. The second reason assigned by them is that the village elders were trying to compromise the matter, but the respondents intentionally dragged on the matter and that constrained the petitioners in approaching their counsel and proceeding with the appeal and therefore, the delay was occurred. The learned Senior Civil Judge has not accepted both the pleas put forth by the petitioners. With regard to the first ground it was held that the petitioners vaguely averred in the affidavit that the record was misplaced at the office of Mr.S.Brahmaji. With regard to the second ground, it was held that no particulars were assigned by the petitioners in their affidavit as to who are the elders who have intervened to compromise the dispute and what are the deliberations that took place and therefore, it was held that no sufficient reasons were assigned to condone the abnormal delay in re-presenting the appeal and accordingly dismissed the impugned I.A. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, who reiterated the very same grounds, which were not found favour with the lower Court. As seen from the record, sale proceedings in E.P.No.77 of 1999 in O.S.No.24 of 1999 were held on 24.1.2000 in which the 7th respondent purchased the suit schedule property in whose favour a sale certificate was also issued. Having received the summons the petitioners have not chosen to challenge the said proceedings, but now they filed the present suit for partition of the suit schedule property. Therefore, filing of the present suit for partition is only an attempt to keep the issue alive and to see that the sale will not become final. Even after the dismissal of the suit, the petitioners are not diligent in prosecuting the appeal. The reasons assigned for the delay occurred in re-presenting the appeal hardly constitute sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Therefore, the discretion exercised by the learned Senior Civil Judge does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this Court. The revision fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. AUGUST 05, 2011 Tsr.