SHAIK GALIB SAHEB Vs. P RADHA KRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order in I.A.No.4475 of 1993 in unregistered C.M.A. on the file of the learned District Judge West Godavari at Eluru, refusing to condone the delay of 252 days in filing the said C.M.A.

(2.) The facts leading to this Revision Petition in. brief are that the revision petitioner filed E.A.No.856/92 on the file of I Additional District Munsif, Eluru, under Order 21 Rule 90 C.P.C. for setting abide the sale held in E.P. No.74/83 on 8-7-1991. The auction purchaser as well as decree-holder have resisted the above petition and it was posted for enquiry on 1-3-1993. As the revision petitioner as well as his advocate were absent, the said E.A. was dismissed for default. Thereupon, he filed E.A.No.296/93 seeking restoration of E.A.No.856/92 and that petition was also contested by the auction purchaser and the decree-holder. The learned Additional District Munsif, Eluru, dismissed the same on merits on 2-9-1993. That order was assailed in this Court in C.R.P.No.3980 of 1993. This Court passed the following order at the admission stage on 22-11-1993.

(3.) The Revision Petitioner did not allow the matter to rest there. He challenged the order in E.A.No.856/92 dated 1-3-1993 in appeal to the District Court, Eluru, by filing C.M.A. (SR) No.11273 of 1993. As there was delay of 252 days in filing the C.M.A., he filed I.A.No.4475/93 under Section 5 of Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay of 252 days in filing the said appeal. After setting out the facts leading to the dismissal of E.A.No.296/93 he stated that he obtained certified copies of the order and decree in E.A.No.856/92 and filed the appeal. According to him the delay of 252 days occurred in his bona fide pursuit of other remedies and that the same is fit to be condoned. The respondents opposed the petition by filing a counter. It is stated that E.A.No.856/92 was posted to 26-2-1993 as a last chance, that the petitioner obtained adjournment to 1-3-1993 and since the petitioner as well as his Counsel were absent on 1-3-1993 it was dismissed and then he filed E.A.No.296/93 for restoration of E.A.No.856/92 but the same was dismissed on 22-9-1993 and his revision petition - C.R.P.No.3980 of 1993 has also been dismissed on 22-11-1993. It is asserted that no sufficient cause is shown by the revision petitioner for condonation of delay and that the sale in question has been confirmed and this petition is meant for dragging on the matter.