Delay in filing an appeal may be condoned if sufficient cause is established, ensuring justice for both parties involved.

Order :

VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.

The petitioner/appellant is the 2^nd defendant in A.S.No.2 of 2010 and against him and another, the respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.50 of 2001 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem. After full- fledged trial, the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem, dismissed the said suit against which, appeal suit in A.S.No.2 of 2010 was preferred before the Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem and the said appeal suit was allowed by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Judge against which, the instant second appeal in S.A.No.385/2023 has been filed by the 2^nd defendant.

2. The case of the petitioner as per the recitals of affidavit of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows:

He is the appellant in the second appeal and the second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.2 of 2010 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem. The petitioner further pleaded that the counsel in the first appellate Court was not even informed him about the judgment and decree till he enquired about the first appeal and when he enquired on 18-11-2022, his counsel in the first appellate Court filed a copy application and certified copy of the judgment was received by him and he was admitted in a hospital because of his ill-health and he is a diabetes patient and suffering from blood pressure and till he recovered from his ill-health, he has not even visited the office of his counsel. He further pleaded that when he visited the office of his counsel in the first week of February, 2023, he was informed about the delay in filing the present second appeal and that the delay of 247 days was occurred in filing the second appeal and that he filed the present application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

3. The learned counsel for respondents opposed the said application filed by the petitioner and contended that no medical certificate has been filed by the petitioner to prove the alleged illness and no document is filed by the petitioner to prove his bona fides as stated in the affidavit of the petitioner and that the delay is not properly explained by the petitioner and therefore, the petition in I.A.No.1 of 2023 may be dismissed.

4. Heard Sri G. Gopala Krishna and Sri Suresh Kumar Rowthu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.V. Ravi Prasad, learned counsel for the respondents.

5. The learned counsel for respondents relied on State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramkumar Choudhary, [2024 SCC Online SC 3612]. In the aforesaid case, the Apex Court held as follows:

“5.1. … … … delay should not be excused as a matter of generosity and rendering substantial justice is not to cause prejudice to the opposite party.

The relevant passage of the same is profitably extracted below:

“24. In the aforesaid circumstances, we made it very clear that we are not going to look into the merits of the matter as long as we are not convinced that sufficient cause has been made out for condonation of such a long and inordinate delay.

25. ……………………..

26. The length of the delay is a relevant matter which the court must take into consideration while considering whether the delay should be condoned or not. From the tenor of the approach of the appellants, it appears that they want to fix their own period of limitation for instituting the proceedings for which law has prescribed a period of limitation. Once it is held that a party has lost his right to have the matter considered on merits because of his own inaction for a long, it cannot be presumed to be non- deliberate delay and in such circumstances of the case, he cannot be heard to plead that t