ORDER : V.SRISHANANDA, J. Heard Sri Anagha Narasimha C.N., learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Ajit P.B., counsel for the petitioners on I.A.No.1/2019. None appears for the respondents. 2. There is delay of 152 days in filing the present revision petition. Therefore, application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the said delay period. 3. Application is supported by affidavit of the revision petitioner. Relevant paragraph in the affidavit at paragraph 14 which reads as under: “14. I submit that after the date of the impugned order dated 23 rd August 2017, I have requested my counsel to apply immediately for obtaining certified copy of the impugned order on 29/08/2017 and the copies of the order was ready only on 12.12.2017. After collecting the copy of the impugned order, as due to business work and as I am residing in USA. I was unable to contact my counsel on time to provide necessary instructions in order to file this current petition impugning the order dated 23th August 2017 in time. Therefore, as a result, there was a delay of around 50 days in providing vakalath and verifying affidavit required in order to file this current petition impugning the Order dated 23th August 2017, passed by the Trial Court. Due to the aforesaid reasons, there was further delay in filing of this petition.” 4. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under: 4.1. Due to the aforesaid reasons, there was further delay in filing of this petition.” 4. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under: 4.1. A suit came to be filed in O.S.No.576/2014 by the revision petitioners with the following prayer in respect of following properties (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit properties’.) “WHEREFORE the Plaintiff most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass a judgment and decree: (i) Declaring the Deed of Mortgage dated February 11, 2008 executed by Defendant No.1 in favour of Defendant No.14 as null and void: (ii) Directing the Defendants to execute a sale deed in favour of the Plaintiff in respect of the Schedule B Property as also defined under the Agreement to Sell; (iii) Of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their assignees, their legal representatives, their successors in interest from encumbering, alienating or creating any charge over the Schedule B property, and (iv) grant such other relief's as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and aforementioned circumstances.” SCHEDULE 'A' PROPERTY (DESCRIPTION OF ENTIRE PROPERTY) ITEM No.1: PROPERTY OWNED BY THE HINDU JOINT FAMILY OF SRI MUNIANJINAPPA 1. Portion of immovable property being residentially converted land bearing Sy No.94, situated at Ellthore Village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District measuring an extent of 6 acres 26 guntas and bounded on the: East by: Sy. No.93 West by: Remaining portion of Sy. No.94 North by: Sy. No.96 South by: Sy. No. 86 II. Portion of immovable property being residentially converted land bearing Sy.No.96, situated at Ellthore Village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District measuring an extent of 6 acres 23 guntas and bounded on the: East by : Sy. No.91 West by : Remaining portion of Sy No.96 North by: Sy. Nos. 97, 98, 90 South by: Sy. Nos.95, 94, 92 III. Portion of immovable property being residentially converted land bearing Sy No.98, situated at Ellthore Village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District measuring an extent of 7 acres 33 guntas and bounded on the: East by : Sy. No.99 West by : Remaining portion of Sy No.98 North by: Village boundary of Choudanahalli South by: Sy.No.96 Totally measuring an extent of 21 Acres 02 guntas ITEM No.2: PROPERTY OWNED BY THE HINDU JOINT FAMILY OF SRI M.H. NAGARAJ 1. No.99 West by : Remaining portion of Sy No.98 North by: Village boundary of Choudanahalli South by: Sy.No.96 Totally measuring an extent of 21 Acres 02 guntas ITEM No.2: PROPERTY OWNED BY THE HINDU JOINT FAMILY OF SRI M.H. NAGARAJ 1. Portion of immovable property being residentially converted land bearing Sy No.94, situated at Ellthore Village, Kundana Hobli. Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District measuring an extent of 2 acres 15 guntas and bounded on the: East by: Remaining portion of Sy No.94 West by: Sy No. 95 North by:Sy No. 96 South by:Sy. Nos. 86 II. Portion of immovable property being residentially converted land bearing Sy No.95, situated at Ellthore Village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District measuring an extent of 4 acres and bounded on the: East by : Sy No. 94 West by : Remaining portion of Sy No.95 North by: Sy No. 96 South by: Sy. Nos. 86 III. Portion of immovable property being residentially converted land bearing Sy No. 96, situated at Ellthore Village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District measuring an extent of 4 acres and bounded on the: East by : Remaining portion of Sy No.96 West by : Remaining portion of Sy No.96 North by : Sy No. 91 South by : Village boundary of Sadahalli IV. Portion of immovable property being residentially converted land bearing Sy No.97, situated at Ellthore Village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District measuring an extent of 4 acres 29 guntas and bounded on the: East by : Sy No. 98 West by: Remaining portion of Sy No.97 North by: Village Boundary of Choudanahalli South by: Sy No. 96 V. Portion of immovable property being residentially converted land bearing Sy No.98, situated at Ellthore Village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District measuring an extent of 1 acre 7 guntas and bounded on the: West by :Remaining portion of Sy No.98 West by :Sy No. 97 North by :Village Boundary of Choudanahalli South by : Sy No. 96 Totally measuring an extent of 16 Acres 11 guntas ITEM No.3: PROPERTY OWNED BY THE HINDU JOINT FAMILY OF SRI M.H. SHAMANNA I. Portion of immovable property being residentially converted land bearing Sy No.95, situated at Ellthore Village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District measuring an extent of 6 acres 33 guntas and bounded on the: East by : Remaining portion of Sy No.95 West by : Village Boundary of Sadahalli North by : Sy No. 96 South by : Sy No. 86 II. Portion of immovable property being residentially converted land bearing Sy No.96, situated at Ellthore Village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District measuring an extent of 3 acres and bounded on the: East by: Remaining portion of Sy No.96 West by: Village Boundary of Sadahalli North by: Sy Nos. 97, 98, 90 South by: Sy Nos. 95, 94, 92 III. Portion of immovable property being residentially converted land bearing Sy No.97, situated at Ellthore Village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District measuring an extent of 6 acres 38 guntas (inclusive of 20 guntas of residentially converted land comprised therein) and bounded on the: East by: Remaining portion of Sy No.97 West by: Village Boundary of Sadahalli North by: Village Boundary of Choudanahalli South by: Sy No. 96 Totally measuring an extent of 16 Acres 31 guntas SCHEDULE 'B' PROPERTY All that residential plot bearing number No.D-111 situated in Ellthore Village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, totally measuring about 5,882 sq.ft. to be formed on the Schedule A Property subject to any modifications or changes as required by the Bangalore International Airport Area Planning Authority (BIAAPA) and bounded by: East by: Open Space West by: D-110 North by: Road South by:Open Space” 5. First defendant - Metrocorp, registered partnership firm filed I.A.No.VI under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Reconciliation Act on appearance before the trial Court to refer the matter to the arbitration, invoking the arbitration clause in the agreement between the plaintiff and the first defendant. 6. The same was opposed by the plaintiff. 7. Learned trial Judge after considering the relevant aspects of the matter, allowed I.A.No.6 filed under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Reconciliation Act and referred the parties to the arbitration. 8. Correctness of the said order is called in question in the revision petition. 9. As could be seen from the affidavit averments, the revision petitioner being the plaintiff was appraised of the impugned order promptly by the counsel for plaintiff. 10. However, there was a slight delay in filing the copy application and obtaining the certified copy of the impugned order. Thereafter, the plaintiff was appraised about the receipt of the order copy which was also communicated to the plaintiff. 11. As could be seen from the averments made in the affidavit, plaintiff says that he was busy in his work and therefore, he did not instruct the lawyer to take necessary steps. 12. The said reason assigned by the revision petitioner cannot be termed as sufficient reason as is contemplated under Section 5 of the Limitation Act so as to condone the delay of 152 days. Moreover, suit is of the year 2014 and in the year 2025 parties are yet to appear before the arbitrator for resolution of their dispute. 13. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the delay of 152 days is not properly explained so as to exercise the discretion vested in this Court under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay. 14. Accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) I.A.No.1/2019 is dismissed. (ii) Consequently, revision petition stands dismissed.