ORDER : 1. This revision petition is arising out of the order dated 28.09.2010 passed in IA No. 217 of 2010 in an unnumbered suit, on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Uravakonda. 2. The revision petitioner has presented a plaint before the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Uravakonda for registering it as a suit. The suit was filed against the respondent/defendant for recovery of the money on the foot of a promissory note. The Court returned the plaint by raising some objections for registration of the plaint. The petitioner/plaintiff resubmitted the plaint with a delay of 93 days explaining the reasons for the delay. The petitioner filed an application in I.A. No. 217 of 2010 for condoning the delay of 93 days in representation of the returned plaint dated 4.6.2010. The trail Court has dismissed the application on the ground that the Court cannot condone the delay beyond 30 days under Section 148 of C.P.C. Aggrieved by the order of the trial court, the present revision petition is filed. 3. Despite service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent. Since this CRP is of the year 2011, the same is being disposed of after hearing learned counsel for the revision petitioner. 4. Heard Sri Maheswara Rao Kunchem, learned counsel for revision petitioner and perused the material on record. 5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner in support of his contentions, placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in Dr. H.C. Upadhya vs. A.R. Rustom Fram and others, 2006 (2) ALT 170 wherein this Court placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in M.A. Mikheed vs. C. Pandurangam, 2005 (3) ALT 424 and the decision of the Apex Court in Salem Advocate Bar Association vs. Union of India, 2005 (5) SCJ 519. The relevant Para-14 in the Salem Advocate Bar Association’s case cited supra is extracted hereunder: “We have no doubt that the upper limit fixed in Section 148 cannot take away the inherent power of the Court to pass orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of this court. The rigid operation of the Section would lead to absurdity. Section 151 has therefore, to be allowed to operate fully. The rigid operation of the Section would lead to absurdity. Section 151 has therefore, to be allowed to operate fully. Extension beyond maximum of 30 days, thus, can be permitted if the act could not be performed within 30 days for reasons beyond the control of the party. We are not dealing with a case where time for doing an act has been prescribed under the provisions of the Limitation Act, which cannot be extended either under Section 148 or Section 151. We are dealing with a case where the time is fixed or granted by the Court for performance of an act prescribed or allowed by the court.” 6. In the instant case, the trial court has returned the plaint with certain objection for its resubmission within the stipulated time. The revision petitioner due to the reasons mentioned in the affidavit could not represent the matter before the trial court within the time. In the light of the decisions cited supra, it is clear that if the Act could not be performed within 30 days for the reasons beyond the control of the party, time can be extended under Section 148 of CPC. It is obvious that the provisions of Limitation Act are applicable to the instant case, as there is no statutory bar created for representing the matter before the Court. In fact the court has returned the plaint for representation complying with the objections. The said petition was re-presented after 93 days of its return beyond the time granted for representation of the plaint. This is a case of the year 2010. No doubt, the civil revision petition has been filed in the year 2011 and it is coming up for hearing only now. The substantial rights of the parties cannot be shut down by closing the avenues of the party to approach the courts for redressal of their grievance. It is the plaintiff who has approached the court for his grievance of recovery of money based on a promissory note. The court without allowing the parties to ventilate their grievance, had dismissed the application on the ground of delay in representation of the matter which is not a proper approach more particularly when there is some medical ground which prevented the plaintiff to approach the court. The court without allowing the parties to ventilate their grievance, had dismissed the application on the ground of delay in representation of the matter which is not a proper approach more particularly when there is some medical ground which prevented the plaintiff to approach the court. In the light of the decisions cited supra, the lower court interpreted the law without appreciating the reasons for the delay in representation. There is satisfactory evidence in filing the petition for reasons beyond the control of the party. The medical reasons stated by the petitioner, are sufficient grounds to condone the delay. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 7. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed, setting aside the order dated 28.09.2010 passed in IA No. 217 of 2010 in OS No. of 2010 by the court of Junior Civil Judge, Uravakonda and the trial court is directed to receive the plaint if it is otherwise in order in accordance with law. No costs. 8. Miscellaneous Petitions if any pending shall stand closed.