(Prayer: Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased toThe above named petitioner beg to present the above Revision Petition in this Honble Court aggrieved by the Order dated 01-07-2025 passed in I.A . No. 1717 of 2024 in C.F.R..No.4119, dated 21-06-2024 in CMA No. 8 of 2025 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Guntur. For the following among other

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to stay all further proceedings in C M A No 8 of 2025 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge at Bapatla, Guntur .District pending disposal of the above Revision Petition and pass

R. Raghunandan Rao, J.

1. The respondent herein had filed O.S.No.99 of 2005, before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bapatla for specific performance of agreement of sale, dated 29.12.1984. This suit came to be dismissed for default. Thereafter, the respondent moved I.A.No.310 of 2008, for setting aside the default order. As there was a delay in the filing of the said application, the petitioner had also moved I.A.No.309 of 2008, to condone the delay of nine (9) days. Both these applications came to be dismissed by the trial Court, on 09.12.2009. Aggrieved by these orders, the respsondent chose to file CRP.No.1788 of 2010,against the order of dismissal of I.A.No.309 of 2008 only. The petitioner did not file any revision or appeal, against the order of dismissal of I.A.No.310 of 2008.

2. This Court, by an order dated 16.12.2011, had allowed the C.R.P.No.1788 of 2010. It may also be noted that this Court while allowing such Civil Revision Petition, had specifically observed that it was not expressing any opinion, on the dismissal of I.A.No.310 of 2008. The respondent after having kept silent for about three years, again moved I.A.No.543 of 2014 in I.A.No.310 of 2008, calling upon the trial Court to conduct an enquiry in I.A.No.310 of 2008, to pronounce an order, on merits. This application came to be dismissed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, the respondents again moved this Court, by way of CRP.No.2035 of 2018. A learned Sigle Judge of this Court, by an order dated 09.02.2024, dismissed the Civil Revision Petition. However, the learned Single Judge while holding that there was no cause to interfere with the order of the trial Court, had observed that the petitioner, if so advised, was at liberty to challenge the order in I.A.No.310 of 2008 in an appropriate proceeding.

3. The respondents, on the basis of this observation, filed an appeal and moved I.A.No.1717 of 2024 in CFR.No.4119, for condonation of delay of 103 days in moving the appeal, against the order of dismissal, dated 09.12.2009, in I.A.No.310 of 2008. This application was moved before the Principal District Judge, Guntur. After hearing both sides, the Principal District Judge, by an order dated 01.07.2025, had condoned the delay of 103 days in filing of the appeal, on payment of costs of Rs.300/-.

4. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has now approached this Court, by way of the present Civil Revision Petition.

5. Sri Y. Subba Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the period of delay would have to be calculated from 09.12.2009 when I.A.No.310 of 2008 came to be dismissed and the condonation of delay of 103 days, would not be sufficient for condoning the entire delay from 09.12.2009.

6. Smt. P. Radhika, learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the right to file the appeal arose out of the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 09.02.2024, inasmuch as the leave granted by the learned Single Judge was the cause for moving the appeal.

7. This Court is unable to accept this contention. I.A.No.310 of 2008 came to be dismissed on 09.12.2009. Any delay in filing and appeal, against the said order of dismissal would have to be explained before the appellate Court, from 09.12.2009. The appellate Court would have to condone the delay from 09.12.2009, if the appellate Court finds merit in such an explanation.

8. In the present case, the appellate Court, had misconstrued the period of delay and accepted the contention of the respondents that the delay would have to be calculated only from the date of leave granted by this Court.

9. In the circumstances, it would be appropriate to set aside the order of the appellate Court, dated 01.07.2025, and remand the matter back to the appellate Court for a determination as to whether any cause for condonation of delay is available to the respondent from 09.12.2009.

10. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

                  As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.