APHC010045342019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 517/2019 Between: Vankayalapati Paulraj and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Nalagatla Venkateswarlu ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. MADHAVA RAO NALLURI Counsel for the Respondent: 1. KOTI REDDY IDAMAKANTI 2 The Court made the following order: The present revision is filed aggrieved by order dated 24.11.2018 passed in IA No.198 of 2018 in unnumbered CMA of the year 2018 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, Prakasam District. 2. The petitioners are the defendants in the suit. The respondent/plaintiff filed suit in OS No.89 of 2014 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Podili for injunction against the petitioners/defendants herein. Along with the said suit, the respondent filed an interlocutory application vide IA No.508 of 2014 seeking to grant temporary injunction. Upon contest, the said application was allowed by order dated 13.06.2016. 3. Aggrieved by the said injunction order, petitioners/defendants preferred a civil miscellaneous appeal with an application to condone the delay of 534 days in filing the CMA. The said application was dismissed which is being impugned in the present revision petition. 4. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the respondent. 3 5. On perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the application, it is clear that the petitioners have stated that, their counsel wrote letter to them so as to prefer an appeal against the injunction order granted by the trail Court. It is also averred that, the deponent went to Hyderabad for medical treatment and other petitioners were also not available on the said date. In view thereof, the petitioners did not consult the advocate in time. Apart from the same, the petitioners did not state anything with regard to delay in filing the CMA, nor did they file any documentary proof to show that the department is taking medical treatment in Hyderabad. The affidavit was sworn in by the 1st petitioner/defendant and the same is silent with regard to the action that has been taken by the other respondents in the suit. The appellate Court after considering the facts of the case dismissed the application and refused to condone the delay of 534 days in preferring the appeal. 6. Though the revision was filed in the year 2019, no interim order was granted by this Court and in view of the same, the trail Court proceeded with the suit. 4 7. In that view of the matter, the trail Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. 8. With the above observation, the present revision petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, all miscellaneous, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR Dt.24.01.2025 DSB 5 91 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR CRP No.517 of 2019 Date 24.01.2025 U DSB