Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
CHALLA GUNARANJAN
Sree Agro Farms, Rep. By Its Proprietor, Dr. Sateesh Tammera @ Thimmara Venkata Rama Satish, S/O. Rama Rao – Appellant
Versus
M. Padma Kumari, S/o. M. Krishna Reddy – Respondent
COMMON JUDGMENT:
Sole defendant in Suit preferred present Civil Revision Petition and Civil Miscellaneous Appeal aggrieved by two separate orders of even dated 23.01.2024, passed in I.A.No.38 of 2019 and I.A.No.165 of 2020 in O.S.No.41 of 2014 on the file of the Court of VII Additional District Judge, Gudur, respectively, rejecting the prayer for condoning delay of 1165 days in filing the petition for setting aside ex parte decree, and consequently, the application filed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside ex parte decree, came to be dismissed as infructuous.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed in the Suit before the trial Court.
3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:
O.S.No.195 of 2013 on the file of the Court of Principal District Judge, Nellore, was filed by the plaintiff for recovery of an amount of Rs.19,26,400/- with interest against the defendant. The said amount was claimed on account of breach of the arrangement had between plaintiff and defendant for buyback of Emu eggs. The trial Court initially ordered notice and issued summons on 25.10.2013. On 22.11.2013 when the matter was called, counsel entered appearance and
The court affirmed that mere lack of knowledge due to negligence does not justify condoning an extensive delay in responding to an ex parte decree.
The court reaffirmed that substituted service under the Code of Civil Procedure does not constitute adequate service, necessitating substantiation of claims in applications for condonation of delay.
The court held that sufficient cause must be shown to condone delay under the Limitation Act, and mere negligence of legal counsel does not qualify as such.
Judicial discretion in condoning delay must favor substantial justice over rigid adherence to timelines, though sufficient cause for delay must be demonstrated.
Negligence in pursuing legal rights disqualifies parties from condoning lengthy delays in appeals, proving insufficient cause under procedural law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
