1. This Revision Petition is filed challenging the order dt.17-02-2010 in I.A.No.362 of 2007 in I.A.No.363 of 2005 in O.S.No.102 of 2003 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Uravakonda.

2. The petitioner in the Revision Petition is the plaintiff in the above suit. He filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.51,100/- with future interest and costs against the respondent.

3. Written statement was filed by the respondent, issues were framed and trial commenced.

4. The petitioner filed his affidavit in lieu of chief examination. The matter was posted to 17-11-2005 for cross examination. On that day, the learned counsel for the respondent filed a petition to receive certain documents and the matter was adjourned to 23-11-2005. On 23-11-2005 Sri A.Raghavendra, learned counsel for the petitioner had gone to Tirupati and had instructed Sri Ramamohan, advocate, Uravakonda to represent on his behalf in the suit. The case was called for cross examination of P.W.1. But P.W.1 i.e. the petitioner was not present and the advocate Sri Ramamohan reported no instructions for the plaintiff. So P.W.1 was called absent and the suit was dismissed for default on 23-11-2005.

5. On 02-12-2005 I.A.No.363 of 2005 was filed under Order IX Rule 9 CPC to restore the suit which has been dismissed for default on 23-11-2005. Affidavit of the counsel Sri A.Raghavendra was filed in support thereof wherein he narrated the circumstances in which the suit came to be dismissed. The said application I.A.No.363 of 2005 was posted from time to time and ultimately it was dismissed on 27-03-2006 on the ground that there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner.

6. On 05-07-2007, the petitioner filed IA.No.362 of 2007 to condone the delay of 465 days in filing the petition to restore I.A.No.363 of 2005 and also another I.A. to restore it. In the affidavit filed in support of I.A.362 of 2007, he contended that he was suffering from severe ill-health and was unable to move; that he had engaged Sri A.Raghavendra as his counsel and the said counsel has advised him that he would look after the case, there was no willful default or intention on his part in not apearing before the Court.

7. Counter was filed by the respondent to the said application. In the counter affidavit, the respondent denied that the petitioner was suffering from severe ill-health or was unable to move. It was also pointed out that the petitioner had not filed any Doctor Certificate in support of the said plea; that the petitioner was running a Finance Corporation and had filed a number cases before the Junior Civil Judge, Uravakonda and every week he was attending at least two or three times before the Court and was also giving evidence in other cases; that he was making false allegation that his advocate Sri A.Raghavendra promised to look after the case; and therefore the I.A be dismissed.

8. By order dt.17-02-2010, the Court below dismissed I.A.No.362 of 2007. It held that on 23-11-2005, the suit was dismissed as P.W.1 was not present for cross examination and the Court waited till 5 p.m. and when his counsel reported no instructions, it was dismissed for default. It held that the petitioner had attended before the Court in some other cases filed by him against some other parties and he had not filed any medical evidence to show that he suffered from ill-health preventing him from filing the application for duration of course 465 days. It also found that the petitioner was hale and healthy when he appeared before the Court at the time of arguments by his counsel and that he did not explain day to day delay and therefore, it was not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner.

9. Challenging the same, this Revision Petition is filed with a delay of 792 days.

10. The petitioner had filed C.R.P.M.P.No.1845 of 2013 for condonation of the said period of delay and the said period of delay was condoned vide order dt.13-06-2013 on payment of a sum of Rs.1,000/- to the AP State Legal Se