D NARAYAN DAS Vs. K NARASAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant in O S No. 96/86 on the file of Special Assistant Agent, Bhadrachalam is the petitioner in this revision. This revision is filed questioning the order of the Agent to Government, Khammam dismissing the I. A. No. 20 of 1988 filed for condoning the delay of 18 days in filing the appeal.

(2.) The respondent-plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No. 96 of 1986 on the file of Special Assistant Agent, Bhadrachalam for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant (revision petitioner) from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit land measuring Ac. 2-75 cents in S.No 54 of Tegada village of Cherla Mandal. It is not necessary for the purpose of this revision to delve on the details of the claim in the suit. The said suit was decreed by the Special Assistant Agent, Bhadrachalam by his order dated 4-1-1988. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decree and judgment, the defendant-revision petitioner preferred A.S No. 2 of 1988 to the Agent to Government Khammam. It was found that there was delay of 18 days in preferring the appeal. I. A. No. 20 of 1988 was filed by the revision petitioner for condoning the delay of 18 days caused in filing the appeal A S No.2 of 1988 on the file of the Agent to Government, Kbammam. It was stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application by the revision petitioner that the certified copy of the decree was made ready on March 29, 1988, and the said fact was not notified by affixing the same on the notice board. Therefore, he was not aware of the fact that the certified copy of the decree was made ready on March 29, 1988. When casually he went to the Court on April 7, 1988, he was informed that the certified copy of the decree was made ready even on March 29, 1988 and therefore, the delay was caused and that the delay was not due to any negligence nor carelessness on his part and that he was prosecuting the proceedings deligently and there was sufficient cause in not filing the appeal within the time.

(3.) The respondent herein (plaintiff) filed a counter in the said I A generally denying all the allegations and putting the petitioner to strict proof of the facts alleged in the affidavit filed in support of the application for condoning the delay of 18 days in filing the appeal. It is'significant to notice that the allegation made by the revision petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the application for condoning the delay of 18 days in presenting the appeal, that the fact that the certified copy of the decree was made ready on March 29 1988 was not notified by affixing the same on the notice board was not denied.