IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that sufficient cause must be shown to condone a delay in filing an appeal, and the delay should not be due to negligence.

JUDGMENT

D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU,J. - This interlocutory application is filed for condonation of delay of 385-547 days in filing the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. In the affidavit annexed to the interlocutory application, at para 6, it is mentioned that there is a delay of 547 days, but in the last para i.e. para 7 of the affidavit, it is mentioned that there is a delay of 385 days. The deponent of the first affidavit has also filed an additional affidavit on 18/7/2023 setting out further details to explain the condonation of delay.

2. This application is very vehemently opposed by the respondents. They filed a very detailed counter affidavit and also an additional counter affidavit.

3. This Court has heard Sri V.S.R.Anjaneyulu, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants/petitioners instructed by Sri V.V.L.N.Sarma and Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned senior counsel for the respondents instructed by OMR Law Firm.

4. The sum and substance of the submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners is that the suit in question out of which the CMA arises can only be filed before the Commercial Court, Vijayawada. It is contended that the suit is filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.9,55,74,429.00 along with interest. Learned senior counsel therefore submits that in view of the constitution of the Commercial Court by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.78 dtd. 16/5/2019, which is functioning with effect from 4/3/2020, the suit is not at all maintainable before the District Judge, Nellore and the orders granted are all non est in the eye of law. He relies upon Musunuru Kasi Annapurnamma v. Musunuru Seshaiah,1983 (1) APLJ 311. and Mahadeo Prasad Singh and another v. Ram Lochan and others,(1980) 4 SCC 354. to argue that since the Court at Nellore has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit at all, the orders passed have to be treated as null and void and therefore non est in the eye of law. It is also submitted that in the strict since there is clear lack of jurisdiction and as the order passed is non est in the eye of law, the condonation of delay and the words 'sufficient cause' should be liberally construed in order to advance substantial justice. He relies upon The State of West Bengal v. The Administrator, Howrah Municipality and others,AIR 1972 SC 749. Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another v. Mst. Katiji and others,AIR 1987 SC 1353. and State of Bihar and others v. Kameshwar Prasad Singh and another,AIR 2000 SC 2306. in support of his contention. Relying upon the medical records that are filed, learned senior counsel submits that the petitioners have made out a case for condonation of delay.

5. In reply to this, Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned senior counsel submits that for the purpose of condonation of delay, this Court cannot hold that the orders are non est or void in law. According to him, the only issue to be considered is whether sufficient cause is made out or not to condone the delay. Relying upon the documents filed, learned senior counsel submits that the respondents have not proved that there was sufficient cause for condonation of delay. He points out that the medical record filed is totally inadequate to condone the huge delay. It is his contention that there should be a declaration from a Court of competent jurisdiction to hold that the order is non est and not binding and the mere assertion of a party is not enough. He relies upon State of Punjab and others v. Gurdev Singh,(1991) 4 SCC 1. and Sneh Gupta v. Devi Sarup and others,(2009) 6 SCC 194. in support of his submission. He, therefore, contends that unless and until a Court. holds that the order is non est and non binding in an appropriate proceeding or an application, this Court while exercising jurisdiction to condone the delay cannot pronounce on the validity of the orders.

6. This Court after hearing both the learned counsel at length notices that a lot of arguments were advanced by the respective senior counsels on the various aspects of the matter including th