The court should consider the balance between the right secured by the respondent as a result of the expiry of the prescribed period of limitation and the injustice of depriving the appellant of adjudication of his grievance on the merits of the appeal for cause beyond his reasonable control.

R. BAYAPU REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition is filed by the respondents in I. A. No. 17 of 1992 in unnumbered A. S-of 1992 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Cuddapah, questioning the orders dated 2-7-1993 by which the petition filed under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act by the petitioner was allowed.

( 2 ) THE respondent herein is the plaintiff and the revision petitioners are the defendants in O. S. No: 20 of 1984 on the file of the Principal District Munsif court, Cuddapah. The said suit filed for the reliefs of declaration of title and mandatory injunction relating to the suit property was dismissed on contest on 21-11-90 by the trial Court. Subsequently the plaintiff filed the appeal in the district Court, Cuddapah on 24-10-91 questioning the decree and Judgment of the trial Court. As the said appeal was beyond the period of limitation involving delay of nine months fourteen days, the plaintiff filed IA. No. 17 of 1992 under sec. 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of such delay contending that she was suffering from heart ailment and was bed-ridden and taking treatment at Kurnool during the relevant period and as such she could not contact her advocate for taking steps to file the appeal in time; that when she returned to cuddapah from Kurnool, she made enquiries and came to know that the case bundle which was sent to her by her advocate was misplaced by her daughter- in-law and the same could be traced only a day prior to the filing of the appeal; that soonafter the same the appeal was filed involving the above said delay which is not intentional and that, therefore, the appeal may be numbered by condoning the delay. The defendants in the suit, who are the present revision petitioners contested the said petition contending that the reasons urged by the plaintiff for condoning the delay are false; that she was not suffering from any ailment and not taking any treatment at Kurnool; that she originally did not intend to file any appeal against the Judgment of the lower Court and she subsequently chose to file the appeal only on account of some disputes that arosebetween mem; that there are no sufficient reasons for condoning the delay and that the petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed.

( 3 ) ON the basis of the evidence adduced before him, the learned District judge allowed the petition for condoning the delay. The present revision petition is filed questioning such orders of the District Judge.

( 4 ) THE point for consideration is whether there are any valid reasons to interfere with the orders of the lower Court in allowing the petition filed for condoning the delay?

( 5 ) IT is to be seen from a perusal of the material on record including the affidavit filed by the respondent herein in support of her petition filed for condoning the delay and the orders of the lower Court by which the petition was allowed, that the delay of 9 months 14 days involved in filing the appeal is attributed to some alleged illness due to which she is said to have been under the treatment of a Medical Practitioner at Kurnool and as such the appeal could not be filed within time. The respondent herein had also filed a certificate said ; to have been issued by the Medical Practitioner, Kurnool under whom she is alleged to have taken the treatment during the relevant period and the said certificate was marked as Ex. A-l. The respondent herein was examined as. P. W. I while the second petitioner herein was examined as R. W. l. It is seen from a perusal of the orders of the lower Court that the contention of the respondent regarding her illness and her consequent inability to file the appeal in time was accepted by the lower Court on the basis of Ex. A-l and the other evidence placed on record and the delay was accordingly condoned. But it is to be seen from a porusal of such orders and the material on record that the lower Court has erred in corning to such conclusion by drawing an erroneous and incorrect inference regard

Click Here to Read the rest of this document