The first & Anr. v. M.Krishnamurthy[1], this Court has examined the allegations made by the second

The petitioners 1 and 2 are appellants in A.S. (SR) No.1919 of 2010 on the file of the Court of District Judge, Rajahmundry.

The first petitioner is the minor daughter of one Sri Venkata Satya Subrahmanyeswara Raja and the second petitioner is the mother of the first petitioner. They filed suit being O.S.No.297 of 2004 on file of the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram, against the father of the first petitioner and another for partition. The said suit was dismissed on 01.12.2008 after regular trial. Aggrieved by the same, they filed the appeal. As there was delay, application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (“the Act” for brevity), being I.A.No.1466 of 2010 was filed seeking condonation of delay of 386 days in filing the first appeal before the District Judge, Rajahmundry. In the affidavit filed, in justification of the delay, the guardian-the second petitioner herein made following averments. “In fact my counsel received the copy of the judgment on 06.01.2009 and told me that if I want to prefer appeal, I can prefer.

To pay Court fee and to meet other legal expenses my Advocate told us I have to see Rs.10,000/- to Rs.12,000/- . I could not get the amount till today. I could pool some amount up to Rs.12,000/- and approached my Advocate and asked him to file this appeal. That is the reason I could not file the appeal in time. I submit that my health condition also did not permit me to go outside. Thereby some delay is happened. Such delay is not an intentional delay”. The learned District Judge considered the plea of the petitioners at length and came to the conclusion that the allegation that the petitioners were unable to secure necessary funds to meet the legal expenses including the Court fee for filing the appeal does not constitute “sufficient cause” within the ambit of Section 5 of the Act and accordingly, dismissed the application. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and applying the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in N.Balakrishnan v.

M.Krishnamurthy[1], this Court has examined the allegations made by the second petitioner the affidavit accompanied with I.A.No.1466 of 2010. Except stating the financial constraints, no other sufficient cause is pleaded. The reasoning of the learned District Judge being sound, this Court is, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. The Civil Revision Petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 16th September 2011 RRB [1] AIR 1998 SC 3222