ORDER :- This review petition is filed under Section 114 C.P.C. to review the order, dated 23.12.2005 passed by this Court in CRP No.6929 of 2005.

2. Before going into the issue whether the order passed by this Court can be reviewed or not and the legal position thereof, it is necessary to refer to the facts involved in this revision. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed in CRP No.6929 of2005.

3. The petitioner, Royyala Laxmi Narayana, filed an application under Section 32 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for brevity "the Tenancy Act") for declaration that he is in undisputed possession of the petition schedule property and also for restoration of possession of the lands in question. The Mandal Revenue Officer, before whom the application was filed, conducted a detailed enquiry, and by his order dated 30.3.1998, dismissed the application. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Joint Collector, Warangal, under Section 90 of the Tenancy Act, along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to condone the delay of about 153 days in filing the appeal. The Joint Collector dismissed the application on the ground that the delay was not properly explained. Questioning the order, dated 7.6.1999, the petitioner filed CRP No.6929 of 2005 along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 2081 days in filing the revision. When the petition to condone the delay came up for hearing, this Court ordered notice to the respondents, and the respondents I, 2, 5 and 6, though received notices, did not put in their appearance either in person or through an advocate. So far as respondent Nos.3 and 4 are concerned they refused to receive the notice. Then, this Court heard Sri Hari Sreedhar, learned Counsel for the petitioner.

4. According to the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner, his client i.e., the revision petitioner was informed by the Counsel, who appeared for him in the trial Court that he had made necessary arrangement for filing revision before the High Court and sent the papers to an Advocate at Hyderabad, and thus, his client was under bona fide impression that a revision was filed and the same is pending. But, after lapse of several years when his client contacted the Counsel, he was informed that though the papers for filing revision were sent by him to the Counsel in the High Court he did not have any communication with him, as such, the Counsel expressed his inability to infom1 the petitioner about the developments in the matter. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner contacted the present Counsel, Sri Hari Sreedhar, who on verification, stated that no revision is filed, and thus, he has filed the present civil revision petition. For this reason, there occurred a delay of about 2081 days. As there was no assistance from the respondents because of their non-appearance in the Court, though the delay is unduly long, as the petitioner shall not suffer for the lapses on the part of the Counsel, this Court, by its order dated 23.12.2005, condoned the delay, entertained the present CRP filed under Section 91 of the Tenancy Act, and allowed it setting aside the order dated 7.6.1999, and directed the Joint Collector to decide both the petition for condoning the delay and the appeal filed under Section 90 of the A.P.

Tenancy Act.

5. As stated above, the respondents have filed the present Review Application under Section 114 CPC to review the order, dated 23.12.2005. As there is a delay of 506 days in filing the Review Application, the respondent Nos.l and 2 filed a petition to condone the delay. In the affidavit filed in support of this petition, it is admitted that the Joint Collector, by his order, dated 7.6.1999, dismissed the Appeal as well as the petition to condone the delay. Questioning the order dated 7.6.1999, the petitioner filed C.RP. No.5704 of 1999 under Sect

Click Here to Read the rest of this document