Judgment :- 1. Animadverting upon the order dated 15.2.2012 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Coimbatore, in I.A.No.696 of 2011 in Cross Appeal CFR No.1614 of 2011 in A.S.No.33 of 2007, this civil revision petition is filed. 2. A thumbnail sketch of the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this revision petition would run thus: (i) A.S.No.33 of 2007 was filed by the revision petitioners herein, which is pending before the Additional District and Sessions Judge(FTC-II) Coimbatore. During the pendency of the said A.S., the cross-appeal was presented by the respondents herein with an application in I.A.No.696 of 2011 to get the delay of 1546 days condoned in filing the said cross-appeal. (ii) After hearing both sides, the delay was condoned and the cross-appeal was allowed to be filed. 3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order condoning the huge delay, this civil revision petition has been focussed on various grounds. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners would echo the cri de couer of his clients by pointing out that absolutely there no shard or shred, jot or miniscule, molecular or iota of evidence to show that the delay occasioned reasonably and that no reason much less valid reason was cited for condoning such delay also, warranting interference in revision. 5. The point for consideration is as to whether there is any perversity or illegality in condoning the said delay by the appellate Court. 6. The fact remains that the A.S. is still pending before the appellate Court. During the pendency of the appeal, such cross-appeal was presented with the delay petition. No doubt, within a month from the date of receipt of the appeal notice, the cross-appeal should have been filed. But in this case, the delay occasioned. 7. The reason attributed for such delay was that the first respondent herein happened to be an octogenarian, so to say, 83 years old and the remaining respondents herein are ladies and hence they could not instruct their advocate to file the cross-appeal in time. The appellate Court thought fit to condone the delay taking into account the age and illiteracy of the respondents. 8. In my considered opinion such discretion exercised by the appellate Court warrants no interference. The appellate Court thought fit to condone the delay taking into account the age and illiteracy of the respondents. 8. In my considered opinion such discretion exercised by the appellate Court warrants no interference. Above all, the respondents would be getting an opportunity to put forth their case while resisting the appeal filed by the revision petitioners herein. Hence, I could see no perversity or illegality in the order passed by the appellate Court. 9. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed. However, there is no order as to cots. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed.