The main legal point established in the judgment is that the expression 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay should be construed liberally on facts, but a distinction can be made between delay of few days and inordinate delay causing prejudice to the other side. Justifiable reasons or sufficient cause must be shown to condone a delay in filing an appeal.

ORDER:

This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 22.02.2021 in I.A.No.69 of 2019 in C.F.No.1026 of 2012 in an unnumbered first appeal on the file of the learned IX Additional District Judge, Sircilla, wherein the said application filed by the petitioners herein under Order XLI Rule 3(A) CPC to condone the delay of 645 days in filing the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 01.05.2017 passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Vemulawada in O.S.No.84 of 2011, was dismissed.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. None appeared for the respondent, through served with notice. Perused the record.

3. Petitioners 1 and 2 herein are defendants in the suit. The suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their agents and workmen from entering into and interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. The said suit was decreed by the trial court by judgment dated 01.05.2017. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed appeal before the learned IX-Additional District Judge. As there was a delay of 645 days in filing the appeal, the petitioners filed I.A.No.69 of 2019 seekining condonation of the same. By the order impugned in this revision, the said application was dismissed.

4. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.69 of 2019 by the second petitioner that the appeal was not filed within time due to the fact that the first petitioner was suffering from cardiac problem and underwent surgery and that the entire family was put to severe financial crisis. The said delay was neither willful nor intentional. The respondent filed counter stating that the petitioners have not filed any documentary proof to show that they are unable to move due to ill-health of the first petitioner and also that the delay of 645 days has not been explained properly.

5. The court below after hearing both sides and after perusing the documents filed along with application dismissed I.A.No.69 of 2019. The court below at paragraphs 7 and 8 of the order held as follows:

“The reasons stated by the petitioners is that petitioner No.1/Lankadasari Lachaiah@ Laxman has undergone treatment in Tulasi Hospital, due to ill-health and he filed the hospital records of Hospital and Yashoda Hospital to show that he undergone treatment. A medical report of Yashoda Hospital, i.e., discharge summary shows that the petitioner No.1 was admitted on 04.12.2017 and discharged on 06.12.2017, but whereas, the judgment was pronounced on 01.05.2017. The entire medical record issued by Tulasi Hospital, Yashoda Hospital, Hyderabad and Usha Mullapudi Cardiac Centre Hospital, Hyderabad, and all are pertaining to petitioner No.1 for the period from November, 2017 to February, 2018. But the petitioner No.2 has filed affidavit stating that because of the petitioner No.1 hospitalized or undergone treatment, the Appeal could not be preferred. If the petitioner No.1 is suffering from ill-health, the petitioner No.2 ought to have preferred the Appeal within the reasonable time, but they failed to do so. Now the present petition filed on the ground that the petitioner No.1 was suffering ill-health, due to which 645 days was caused. But petitioner No.2 who filed this petition along with the affidavit has stated in his affidavit that the petitioner No.1 was suffering from cardiac problem and due to economical crisis, the Appeal could not be preferred. But the petitioner No.2 has nothing stated as to why he has not taken steps to prefer Appeal. Since the petitioner No.2 is also defendant No.2 in the main suit ought to have preferred the Appeal notwithstanding with the health condition of the petitioner No.1.

Hence, the reasons stated by the petitioner No.2 in his affidavit is not satisfactory as the judgment was pronounced by the trial court on 01.05.2017 and whereas, the petitioner No.1 seems to be undergone treatment from the month of November, 2017 onwar