The court emphasized the need for a reasonable explanation for delay in presenting an appeal and highlighted the importance of adhering to the substantive law of limitation.

JUDGMENT

1. I have heard learned Senior Counsel Mr.P.Rajasekhar, representing on behalf of Mr.E.V.V.S.Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr.T.V.Jaggi Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This petition is filed by the petitioners/appellants/defendants under Sec. 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay of 1250 days in preferring the second appeal against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.186 of 2012 on the file of IV Additional District Court, Kakinada.

3. The case of the petitioners/defendants in brief is that R1, R2 have filed O.S.No.74 of 2010 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge Court, Kakinada, for partition of plaint schedule property into 15 equal shares and to allot two such shares to them and for mesne profits. The petitioners submit that they denied the contention of the respondents by stating that they have no right to claim share in the plaint schedule property and they further stated that suit schedule property is the absolute property of D2 to D4. It is the contention of the petitioners that the trial Court erroneously decreed the suit by passing a preliminary decree against which they preferred A.S.No.186 of 2012 on the file of VI Additional District Court, Kakinada, which was dismissed on erroneous appreciation of law and facts. They submit that they preferred the present second appeal having raised substantial question of law to be decided by this Court. The main contention of the petitioners is that the judgment in A.S.No.186 of 2012 was pronounced in the month of December 2018, but they do not know whether their previous counsel Mr.M.V.J.Ramagopal, filed any copy application for obtaining certified copies of judgment and decree and later due to Covid-19 and also due to the death of their counsel in the month of August 2021, they could not take any steps to prefer second appeal before this Court. The petitioners submit that they approached the counsel, who is looking after the office of their previous counsel and came to know about non-filing of second appeal and then immediately applied for certified copies and preferred the second appeal, due to that the delay of 1250 days occurred. They pray to condone the delay.

4. The petitioners have also filed additional affidavit of the first petitioner stating that the judgment in first appeal was pronounced on 26/12/2018 and appeal has to be filed within 90 days from the date of receipt of certified copies of judgment and decree and after disposal of the appeal, they were informed about the result and then they made a request to obtain certified copies as they were advised to prefer second appeal before this Court and they were under the impression that copy application was made and they were enquiring the advocate clerk, who is looking after the case, who used to inform that the copy was not prepared and in the meantime, Covid-19 was started as the first petitioner is aged and has not came out from the house and subsequently came to know that in the month of August 2021, his counsel died. They also stated that on enquiry they came to know that advocate clerk, who is looking after the affairs of their case stopped coming to the office and found that he has not taken any steps to get the certified copies and advocate clerk kept them in dark and their record was also misplaced in the office and after that one of the junior advocate in the office of their counsel obtained certified copies and then they filed the present second appeal. They have stated that delay in presenting the appeal is neither wilful nor wanton but delay occurred due to the acts of their advocate clerk and if the delay is not condoned, they will be put to serious loss. They pray to condone the delay.

5. The respondents have filed counter affidavit denying the averments in the affidavit of the first petitioner. It is the contention of the respondents that judgment in A.S.No.186 of 2012 was pronounced on 26/12/2018 but copy application was made on 4/8