THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P.3541 OF 2010 3-09-2010 Between: M.Thripuraiah and others ..Petitioners Vs. Anna Venkateswarlu and others …Respondents. THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P.3541 OF 2010 ORAL ORDER The revision is directed against the order dated 09-07-2010 rejecting I.A.No.573 of 2009 in A.S.No. /2009 (CFR No.2381) on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Ongole. The revision petitioners filed O.S.No.94 of 1993 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Markapur against their father (first defendant) and another defendant for partition and separate possession of 5/6th the share in the plaint schedule property. The father had filed I.P.No.8 of 1995 under Sections. 9 and 13 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 (for short “Act”) for seeking declaration as an insolvent. The father’s creditors filed another Insolvency Petition 3 of 1996 under Section 10 of the Act to declare the father as an insolvent and in the schedule to I.P.No.3 of 1996, the joint family properties of the petitioners (as set out in the schedule to O.S.No.94 of 1993) were set out, excluding an extent of Ac.5.61 cents of the joint family property in Sy.No.17/1. The three cases O.S.No.94 of 1993, I.P.No.8 of 1995 and I.P.No.3 of 1996 were clubbed together and evidence was recorded and a common judgment was pronounced on 09-11-1998. Against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.94 of 1993, the petitioners preferred A.S.No.168 of 1998. This appeal was dismissed on 31- 12-2008. The petitioners thereupon filed a Second Appeal, being SA 33 of 2009. This appeal was dismissed by this Court on 19-02- 1999 inter alia observing that the petitioners failed to prefer any appeal against the order in I.P.No.3 of 1996 (filed by the creditors to declare their father as an insolvent) and therefore that order had become final. The petitioners thereupon filed I.A.No.573 of 2009 seeking condonation of the delay of 3755 days in presenting an appeal against the order of the Insolvency Court in I.P.No.3 of 1996, dated 09-11-1998. In the affidavit filed in support of this application, they pleaded that as per the advise of their counsel they filed an appeal only against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.94 of 1993 and failed to prefer an appeal against the order in I.P.No.3 of 1996 and that this error was occasioned on account of the erroneous advise of their counsel in the lower court; that there are no latches on their part and being villagers they have no knowledge of law. By the order impugned the learned District Judge, Ongole rejected the application for condonation of the delay of 3755 days in preferring the appeal. The court held that there were no material to support the plea of the petitioners that they failed to file the appeal against the order in I.P.No.3 of 1996 on account of the wrong advise of their counsel and that in any event there was no reasonable ground for condonation of the extraordinary delay of more than 10 years. The court below also noticed that as per the orders in I.P.No.3 of 1996 and pursuant to the judgment dated 09- 11-1998 therein, the properties were directed to be sold in public auction and the sale proceeds distributed amongst the creditors. The official receiver conducted a public auction of the properties on 08-06-2007 and the sale amount of Rs.14,61,000/- was lying in deposit with the official receiver. The court also noticed that the appeal preferred by the petitioners against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.94 of 1993 being A.S.No.168 of 1998 was dismissed for default on 14-06-2004. Thereafter the official receiver had conducted a public auction of the properties on 08- 06-2007. Later the petitioners filed an application to restore A.S.No.168 of 1998 which was dismissed for default. This application was dismissed on 6-6-2007. The petitioners thereupon preferred C.M.A.No.443 of 2007. C.M.A was allowed and the appeal transferred to the Court of VI Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court), Markapur and the appeal was dismissed on merits on 31-12-2008. Thereupon the petitioners preferred S.A.No.33 of 2009 which was also dismissed by this Court on 19- 02-2009. After the auction of the petition schedule properties was conducted at the instance of the Official Receiver and after the appeal in A.S.No.168 of 1998 went against them, the petitioners filed an application before the Senior Civil Judge, Markapur to set aside the sale conducted by the official receiver. That petition was also rejected. The court also noticed that the schedule properties in I.P.No.3 of 1996 were already sold in public auction and some of the creditors/petitioners in I.P.No.3 of 1996 also died. The court below also deprecated the conduct of the petitioners in attributing the blame to the wrong advise allegedly given by the lower court advocate, just to seek condonation of an extraordinary delay of more than 10 years and rejected I.A.No.573 of 2009. In the facts and circumstances stated above, this court finds no error in the application of law or in the exercise of discretion by the Court below in declining to condone the delay of 3755 days in preferring an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 09-11- 1998 in I.P.No.3 of 1996. There are no merits. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. ________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 3rd SEPTEMBER 2010 TSNR