CRP/6201/2010 of Chintalapudi Samrajayam Vs Sabbe Veera Raghavulu on 31 December 2010

ORDER:

Since the revision is considered on merits, notice isdispensed with in CRP.MP.Nos.5362 of 2007 filed for condoningthe delay in filing the revision; and CRP.MP.No.2197 of 2009 filedto bring the legal representative of deceased first respondent onrecord. Both the CRP.MPs. are ordered.

Heard the revision on merits.

Petitioner-second plaintiff filed suit in O.S.No.92 of 1988along with her husband (first plaintiff) seeking specificperformance of an agreement of sale, dated 25.3.1988 executedby the defendants 1 and 2 and their father late Bheemaiah infavour of the first plaintiff for Rs.6,000/- and to direct thedefendants to execute a sale deed and in the alternative, to returnRs.29,600/- towards damages for breach of contract. Ondismissal of the suit by judgment and decree, dated 11.4.1997, thepetitioner along with her husband filed A.S.No.34 of 1999 before IIAdditional District Judge, Vijayawada and the same was dismissedfor default on 16.10.2001. To restore the said appeal to its file,petitioner filed I.A. under Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C. and since therewas delay of 1203 days in filing the restoration petition, theimpugned I.A.No.1999 of 2005 was filed for condoning the delay of1203 days stating that the appeal stood posted to 16.10.2001 forhearing but due to the family troubles, the first plaintiff (husband ofthe petitioner) could not meet his counsel and prosecute theappeal and the same was dismissed for default. Due to the familydisturbances in the family, he was mentally upset and was not in aposition to pursue the appeal, which caused the delay.

The reasons so assigned hardly constitute sufficient causefor condoning the delay. In that view of the matter, the discretionexercised by the lower Court in dismissing the impugned I.A. doesnot suffer from any illegality warranting interference by thisCourt.

The revision is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

_______________

A. GOPAL REDDY, J.

DECEMBER 31, 2010

Tsr.