Back
2002 Supreme(AP) 1397
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : C.Y.SOMAYAJULU
Bakkam Rajaveeru @ Rajeeru - Appellant
Versus
Midtbapalli Venkatalah - Respondent
Decided On : 12-10-02
Headnote:
Evidence - Mobilizing - Funds - Health - Holding - Averments affidavit of revision petitioner filed in support of application show that after obtaining copies of decree and judgment to be appealed against he approached his counsel after mobilizing funds and delivered papers to him but his advocate informed that as Courts are closed for summer vacation he would prepare and file appeal into Court on reopening day and thereafter since he was bed ridden for a number of days due to jaundice he could not contact his Advocate and so delay days that occurred in preferring appeal may be condoned - Held, Apart from fact that petitioner did not produce a medical certificate to show that he was bed ridden for nearly one year due to jaundice facts of case do not warrant Condonation of long delay of 334 days because allegation in affidavit of petitioner show that he after mobilizing funds went with copies of decree and judgment and other relevant papers to his advocate and came to know that Courts were closed for summer vacation and that his Advocate informed him that he would prepare and file the appeal in Court after reopening Courts - For preferring an appeal except signing vakalath and giving necessary funds to his advocate an appellant need not do anything - Since grounds of appeal have to be prepared by counsel even the presence of appellant is not very essential - Since it is case of revision petitioner that he went to his Advocate with funds and papers and that his advocate informed him that he would prepare and file appeal after reopening of Courts, even assuming that petitioner did fall sick since reasons for counsel not filing appeal on reopening day are not explained, revision petitioner falling sick is not a ground for condoning long delay of 334 days - petition dismissed
( 2 ) THE averments in the affidavit of the revision petitioner filed in support of the application show that after obtaining the copies of decree and judgment to be appealed against, he approached his counsel after mobilizing funds, and delivered the papers to him on 02-05-2000, but his advocate informed that as the Courts are closed for summer vacation he would prepare and file the appeal into Court on the reopening day, and thereafter since he was bed ridden for a number of days due to jaundice he could not contact his Advocate, and so the delay of 334 days that occurred in preferring the appeal may be condoned.
( 3 ) ON the ground that the revision petitioner did not adduce evidence to show that he was suffering from jaundice or any ill health, holding that the delay of 334 days was not properly explained by the revision petitioner, the learned District Judge dismissed I. A. No. 612 of 2001 by the order under revision.
( 4 ) APART from the fact that the petitioner did not produce a medical certificate to show that he was bed ridden for nearly one year due to jaundice, the facts of the case do not warrant condonation of the long delay of 334 days, because the allegation in the affidavit of the petitioner show that he, after mobilizing the funds, went with the copies of decree and judgment and other relevant papers to his advocate and came to know that the Courts were closed for summer vacation, and that his Advocate informed him that he would prepare and file the appeal in Court after reopening of the Courts. For preferring an appeal, except signing vakalath and giving necessary funds to his advocate, an appellant need not do anything. Since the grounds of appeal have to be prepared by the counsel, even the presence of the appellant is not very essential. Since it is the case of the revision petitioner that he went to his Advocate with funds and papers, and that his advocate informed him that he would prepare and file the appeal after reopening of Courts, even assuming that the petitioner did fall sick/ since the reasons for the counsel not filing the appeal on the reopening day are not explained, revision petitioner falling sick is not a ground for condoning the long delay of 334 days. For that reason and for the reason that revision petitioner did not produce any medical certificate to show that he suffered ill health, I find no grounds to interfere with the order dismissing the application of the revision petitioner to condone the delay of 334 days. Therefore, the revision petition is dismissed. No costs.
