(1.) This Court ordered notice before admission on 5-12-2009 and in C.R.P.M.P. No. 7809/2009 this Court granted interim stay on condition of depositing half of the decretal amount within a period of eight weeks. Inasmuch as, the said conditional order had not been complied with, the interim stay granted earlier had been vacated on 28-4-2010 in C.R.P.M.P. No. 1294/2010.
(2.) Sri Veera Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the Petitioner had taken this Court through the grounds raised in the Civil Revision Petition and would maintain that in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Ill-Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal totally erred in dismissing the application filed by the Petitioner praying for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter in short referred to as 'the Act' for the purpose of convenience). The learned Counsel also would maintain that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 had not been appreciated in proper perspective and the documents Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.6 and Ex.X.1 also had not been considered in proper perspective.
(3.) The learned Counsel also would further maintain that the learned Judge failed to see that though the Court below ordered summons through Court and post in O.S. No. 42/2003, the Revision Petitioner had not received any summons and the alleged acknowledgment - Ex.X.1 does not contain the signature of the Revision Petitioner. The learned Counsel also while further elaborating submissions had pointed out to the evidence available on record - the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and also the evidence of R.Ws.1 and 2 and further pointed out to Ex.A.1, Ex.A.2, Ex.A.3, Ex.A.4, Ex.A.5, Ex.A.6 and also Ex.X.1 and would maintain that since the learned III-Addlitional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal had not appreciated the facts and circumstances in proper perspective and since the learned Judge had not exercised the discretion properly, the Civil Revision Petition to be allowed and an opportunity to be given to the Revision Petitioner.