A mere claim of Counsel's neglect does not suffice for condonation of delay without establishing sufficient cause; litigants maintain responsibility for timely action.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Tota Tejaswara Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner. There is no representation for the respondent.

2. The plaintiff-petitioner filed OS No.361 of 2015 in the Court of VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam for a decree of mandatory and permanent injunction against the defendant-respondent. The suit was dismissed on 29.09.2022.

3. The petitioner preferred AS No. of 2023 with delay of 281 days. IA No.1625 of 2023 was filed under Order XLI Rule 3-A of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) read with Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT , 1963, for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

4. The petitioner, inter alia, submitted that after acquiring the knowledge of the dismissal of the suit, he approached the Counsel to obtain the certified copy of the judgment and decree, to prefer the appeal within the stipulated time. But, the Counsel did not apply for considerable period. The petitioner then approached another Counsel but in vain he also did not file the appeal. The petitioner then took back the case file from that Counsel and contacted the third Counsel on 27.05.2023, who after verifying the certified copies and preparing the case, filed the appeal. But, in the meantime, there was delay of 281 days. The cause shown was said to be sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

5. The defendant-respondent filed counter-affidavit-objection inter alia, denying the cause as also the cause to be a sufficient cause. He submitted that the petitioner was negligent in filing the appeal in time. The petitioner received the certified copy on 13.12.2022, but, the appeal was filed belatedly on 30.06.2023. There was lack of bona fides. The application was devoid of merits and deserved rejection.

6. The learned Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam dismissed the IA No.1623 of 2023 for condonation of delay by order dated 19.04.2024.

7. The learned Principal District Judge held that there was abnormal delay of six months in filing the appeal. The certified copy of the decree was received by the petitioner on 13.12.2022, but the appeal was filed on 30.06.2023. The cause was found not established. The minimum particulars to substantiate such cause, the name of the Counsel; on what date petitioner approached the Counsel etc., were not stated. The cause was not sufficient to condone the delay.

8. Challenging the order dated 19.04.2024, the present civil revision petition under Section 115 CPC has been filed.

9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the delay occurred due to the fault of the Counsels in not filing the appeal in time. There was sufficient cause. The learned Court should have taken a lenient view and ought to have condoned the delay. He admits that the delay was of 281 days and not of 193 days.

10. I have considered the submissions advanced and perused the material on record.

11. The cause set up by the petitioner was the negligence of the Counsel in not applying the certified copies and in not filing the appeal. It is his case that one after the other he approached three Counsels but the previous two Counsels did not file the appeal. To establish such a cause, the necessary particulars should have been disclosed, so as to inspire the confidence in the plea taken and to establish his bona fides and no negligence, in making timely efforts to file the appeal. The suit was dismissed on 22.09.2022. The certified copy was received on 13.12.2022. But, the appeal was filed on 30.06.2023