The law of limitation must be applied rigidly, and a significant delay in filing appeals cannot be condoned without adequate and credible justification.

ORDER :

V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.

The petitioner/appellant filed the present Interlocutory Application with a prayer to condone the delay of 1221 days in filing the Second Appeal against the Decree and Judgment passed in A.S.No.40 of 2011, dated 31.01.2013 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court), Kadapa at Rajampet, in partly allowing the appeal suit filed against the Decree and Judgment passed in O.S.No.61 of 2002, dated 24.02.2011, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet.

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

The plaintiff Nos. 1 to 3 are the legal heirs of the brother of the petitioner by name Subbanarasaiah, and the father of the petitioner by name Penchalaiah got three sons namely Subbanarasimhulu, who is the husband of the plaintiff No.1 and the father of the plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3, and the petitioner is the 2nd son and the respondent No.4 herein is the 3rd son of Penchalaiah. While so, Subbanarasaiah got partitioned the joint family properties and having taken his share and got separated from the joint family, thereafter, the plaintiff No.1 and her late husband left the village and kept their family separately at her parents’ place. The petitioner pleaded that the suit schedule properties are the joint family acquired properties by them with joint nucleus after separation of the plaintiff family.

II. The petitioner herein further pleaded that after the demise of his brother Sri Subbanarasimhulu, the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.61 of 2002, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet, for partition. The trial Court dismissed the said suit on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to prove the identity of the suit property with correct boundaries and also failed to establish that the suit properties are ancestral properties and self-acquired property of the father of the petitioner, i.e., late Sri Penchalaiah, and Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-3 did not in any way establish the right of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment, the plaintiff filed an appeal in A.S.No.40 of 2011, on the file of the III Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Cuddapah at Rajampet. The petitioner pleaded that the First Appellate Court had partly allowed the first appeal vide A.S.No.40 of 2011 on 31.01.2011, holding that the item No.1 of the suit schedule property is liable for partition. Aggrieved by the decree and judgment passed by the First Appellate Court, the petitioner herein filed the present second appeal before this Court along with the Interlocutory Application vide I.A.No.1 of 2018, seeking to condone the delay of 1221 days in filing the second appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the respondents herein have received the notices very recently and he filed Vakalat before the Registry on 10.12.2025. He further contended that the First Appellate Court disposed of the appeal on 31.01.2013, but the petitioner herein, after a lapse of more than five (05) years, instituted a second appeal with a delay of 1221 days, and there are no tenable grounds to consider the request of the petitioner, and the abnormal delay of more than five (05) years in filing the second appeal is not at all explained by the petitioner in the affidavit enclosed to the petition and that the present application may be dismissed.

4. Heard learned counsel appearing on both sides on record.

“Now the point for determination is whether the petitioner has shown any sufficient cause to condone the delay of 1221 days in filing the Second Appeal?”

POINT:

5. The undisputed facts are that the legal heirs of the brother of the petitioner herein instituted