THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2813 OF 2011 Dated:18.08.2011 Between: Angitapalli Obulreddy and another .. Petitioners And Bondili Krishnabai and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2813 OF 2011 ORDER: This revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed against the order dated 09.02.2011 in I.A.No.861 of 2009 in O.S.No.166 of 1997 passed by the Court of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry, refusing to condone the delay of 655 days in representing the case papers in the above suit. The petitioners are the plaintiffs. They instituted the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale. The same was dismissed for default on 23.01.2006 for non appearance of the petitioners. They then filed an application on 06.02.2006 under Order IX Rule 9 of CPC to set aside the order dated 23.01.2006. It was returned by the Court with certain objections to be complied with. The same was not represented within the stipulated time. After the lapse about two years, they represented the returned case papers with a petition to condone the delay of 655 days. Observing that the petitioners were not diligent in prosecuting their case, the Court below dismissed the application. This Court heard the counsel for the petitioners and perused the order in I.A.No.861 of 2009. After CPC has been amended to the effect that where any period is fixed or granted by the Court for the doing of any act prescribed or allowed by this Code, the Court may, in its discretion, from time to time, enlarge such period not exceeding 30 days in total, even though the period originally fixed or granted may have expired. In this case, there has been inordinate delay of 655 days in representing the case papers. Except alleging that the case papers were mixed up with other records, which is common usual allegation in such affidavits, no substantial reason was pleaded nor demonstrated. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) 18.08.2011 KH