ASMP.No.408 of 2015 is filed for condonation of delay of 801 days in filing the appeal i.e., AS (Sr) No.9795 of 2014 against the judgment and decree, dated 18-04-2012, in OS.No.276 of 2007, on the file of the Court of the learned IX Additional District Judge (FTC), Visakhapatnam.

For convenience, the parties shall be hereinafter referred to as arrayed in AS (Sr) No.9795 of 2014.

In the affidavit, filed in support of ASMP, all that appellant No.3 has stated for explaining the delay is as under:

“I submit that the Lower Court pronounced the judgment on 18th April, 2012. Copy application was filed on 5th July, 2014, and the copy was made ready on 13th August, 2014. In this connection, I humbly submit that I am not aware of the pronouncement of judgment by the Lower Court till I got applied for the copy application. Though the Lower Court dismissed the suit in respect of primary relief, the advocate appeared on my behalf, in spite of myself visiting the office, did not intimate the pronouncement of the judgment. When the respondents are intending to alienate the plaint schedule property, on coming to know about the same, when I insisted my advocate about the result of this suit, my advocate informed in the 1st week of July, 2014 about the result of the suit. Immediately, I got applied for the certified copy of the decree and judgment and the Lower Court delivered the certified copy on 13th August, 2014. I humbly that since we are not aware of the pronouncement of the judgment till the 1st week of July, 2014, though this suit is decreed for the alternative relief, we could not file appeal within the time stipulated in not granting the relief of Specific Performance as also the Damages. In the process, delay of 801 days occurred in filing the appeal. The non-filing of the appeal within the time stipulated is neither willful nor wanton, but for the reason stated above. Unless this Hon’ble Court condones the delay of 801 days in filing the appeal, we will to do serious and irreparable loss.”

From the contents of the above-reproduced Para, it is evident that the appellants have sought to throw the blame squarely on the Advocate appearing for them in the Court below. The suit proceedings being original in nature and the appellants having participated in the trial are expected to know about the stage of the suit. If the judgment was pronounced on 18-04-2012 and even assuming that the Advocate representing them has failed to inform them of the result, no litigant is expected to remain quiet for more than two years without even enquing about the stage of the suit, especially, after the trial was completed. Therefore, the plea of the appellants that, as their Counsel has not informed them of the result for more than two years, they were not aware of the disposal of the suit, cannot be accepted. If the allegation against their Advocate bears truth, it constitutes gross professional misconduct on his part. It is not the pleaded case of the appellants that they have made any complaint to the Bar Council to take action against the Advocate concerned.

The law is well settled that longer the delay, the heavier is the burden on the party to prove that he was prevented by sufficient cause from approaching the Court earlier. Though, ordinarily, the Courts have to take a liberal view while considering the applications for condonation of delay, the party, who fails to give plausible or convincing explanation for condonation of delay, does not deserve any indulgence by the Court. Speaking for the Division Bench in State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Murali Madhava Rao (2009 (3) ALT 637), I observed as under:

“The intendment of law in prescribing limitation is to see that persons are not vexed with the litigation for unduly long periods and their legitimate expectation of receiving the fruits of success in litigation is not defeated after a certain period by dragging him to a further round of litigation. This legislative object based on public policy cann