which may be noticed in this case is that the doctor issued a certificate dated 27.11.2009 stating that the 1st revision petitioner was under his treatment for severe back pain and was advised to take bed rest from 25.05.2008 till 25.11.2009, which is in variance with her affidavit in which the 1st revision petitioner had stated that she was advised to take bed rest from 25.05.2008 till 15.04.2010. Further perusal of the doctor certificate would reveal that the said doctor is a consultant Endocrinologist and Physician. Except this certificate, there is no material before the Court to come to a conclusion that she was suffering from any ailments. Further one significant fact which needs to be noticed in this case is that the revision petitioners pleaded ignorance of the knowledge about the entire legal proceedings. It may be noticed that the suit was instituted by the husband of the 1st revision petitioner in the year 1997 and it had underwent various stages of passing of a temporary injunction in his favour initially, which later came to be vacated. Further, the entire dispute is in relation to Acs.09-05 cents, which was being claimed by the respondents by virtue of a Registered Gift Deed of the year 1982. Therefore, the plea of the revision petitioners that they do not have knowledge of the legal proceedings which the deceased K.Kishan Reddy was conducted, that too, against his sister with regard to the properties which were gifted in the year 1982, is unbelievable and cannot be accepted. In other words, the statement made by the 1st revision petitioner that she was not aware of the legal proceedings, is hard to believe. In those circumstances, and considering the facts that the delay is abnormal and there being no bona fides in the statements made on behalf of the revision petitioners, I do not consider it, there was any error in the order of the trial Court in refusing to condone the delay. Accordingly the C.R.P. No.5206 of 2012 is dismissed.
