IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.60 of 2010 Between: Kalla Satyanarayana Ravi and another ..... PETITIONERS AND Nidadhavolu Vidyavathi .....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.60 of 2010 O R D E R: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. Though notice is served on the respondent, none appeared on her behalf. It is the case of the petitioners that this Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the docket order dated 18.11.2009 made in I.A.1458/2009 in unnumbered AS(GR).No.5866/2009 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam. The said I.A. was filed to condone the delay of 414 days under Or.41 Rule-3A r/w.Sec.151 CPC in filing the appeal against the judgment and decree in O.S.778/2007 dated 02.04.2008 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. The question before the learned District Judge was only to condone the delay or not if there were sufficient reasons or grounds stated. However, the learned District Judge passed following docket order on 18.11.2009: “Delay will be condoned on payment of suit costs and 1/4th decretal amount. In order to give an opportunity to the petitioner to prove the non-diligence as reason is lack of proper advice. For payment call on 04.12.2009.” It is not known what happened after 04.12.2009 and it is also not known whether I.A.1458/2009 is dismissed for non-compliance of the said conditional order, as there was no stay granted by this Court. This Court only ordered notice before admission on 26.11.2010. This civil revision petition is filed aggrieved by the condition imposed by the learned District Judge in a delay condonation application, directing to pay suit costs and 1/4th decretal amount. I am of the opinion that the learned judge in imposing the said condition without disposing of the application is illegal and erroneous. Therefore, if the said I.A is still pending before the Court below, the impugned order is set aside and the Court below shall consider the said I.A. and dispose of the same, in accordance with law. If the said I.A. was already disposed of, this order shall not be given effect to, and it is open for the petitioners to work out their remedies against the dismissal of I.A. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 29.01.2011 Dsr