( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 31-8-1999 passed by the X Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in I. A. No. 612 of 1999 in I. A. No. 1931 of 1996 in OS No. 1667 of 1989 under which the said I. A. No. 612 of 1999 purported to have been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in representing the application for restoring I. A. No. 1931 of 1996, which was dismissed for default, has been dismissed.

( 2 ) NEITHER the memorandum of civil revision petition nor the order passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge contains the necessary details as to for what purpose the I. A. No. 1931 of 1996 was filed. However, on behalf of the petitioner, an affidavit has been filed in this Court giving certain particulars leading to this civil revision petition.

( 3 ) IT appears the petitioner herein has filed O. S. No. 1667 of 1989 before the X Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for declaration of title and perpetual injunction in respect of certain property. A Petition in I. A. No. 119 of 1946 has been filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of C. P. C. seeking to add the relief of possession and cancellation of the sale deed dated 23-11-1991. The plaint was returned for want of pecuniary jurisdiction by the X Assistant Judge on 4-11-1994 and on 8-11-1994, the plaint was resubmitted in the Additional Judge s Court in O. S. Sr. No. 12088 of 1994. On 2-12-1995, the plaint was returned by the Additional Judge s Court on the ground of lack of jurisdiction for presentation before the proper Court. Again, the plaint was resubmitted in the Court of Assistant Judge in O. S. SR. No. 16878 of 1995 and the same was returned with office objection. On 13-3-1996, it was represented with IASR1264 of 1996 to extend time in representing the suit by condoning the delay of 93 days. Though it is not mentioned even in the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner, but it has to be presumed that this IA was returned with some objections. It is not clear from the affidavit filed by the petitioner as to for what purpose the said IA was filed. It appears on 16-12-1996 another IA 1931 of 1996 was filed under Section 148 of C. P. C. seeking extension of time by condoning the delay in representing IASR1264 of 1996. On 23-4-1999, this IA 1931 of 1996 was dismissed for default. The present IA612 of 1999 has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in July, 1999 to condone the delay of 49 days in filing the petition under Order 9, Rule 9 of C. P. C. to restore IA 1931 of 1996 with the affidavit of the counsel for the petitioner.

( 4 ) IN support of this application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the petitioner s Advocate filed an affidavit stating that IA No. 1931 was filed under Section 148 of CPC for extension of time by condoning the delay in representing IA 1264 of 1996. It is stated that the Court ordered notice in the said IA. The counsel appearing for the respondent refused to take notice. Then notice was sent to the party through the Court. The respondent in the said IA entered appearance through a counsel who had been seeking time for filing counter. It is stated that petitioner s Advocate was not aware of the counter as having been filed and he was under bona fide impression that the counter was yet to be filed. The matter was posted to 23-4-1999 for filing counter. He was under the impression that the matter was still coming up for counter. He thought of noting down the date of adjournment later and therefore he left for the High Court in the forenoon and could not return back to the Court on that date. On subsequent dates, the case escaped in his diary. During Summer Vacation, he was out of station and his staff re-arranged the bundles and kept the bundle without date. It came to his notice on review of all cases after the office was reset in the week prior to the presentation of the petition. When he verified with the Court record, he found that the case was dismis