Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
G. RADHA RANI, J.
Gudemoni Anjaneyulu – Petitioner
Versus
Avula Bal Raj – Respondent
I.A. No. 2 of 2024, I.A. No. 02 of 2023, A.S. No. 275 of 2023
Decided On : 02-09-2024
(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 5 – Condonation of delay – Application to condone delay of 1244 days in filing appeal against ex-parte decree – Petitioners failed to show sufficient cause for delay, relying on counsel's negligence – Court emphasized the need for diligence in prosecuting the case and held that mere reliance on counsel does not absolve responsibility. (Paras 3, 25, 28)
(B) Delay in filing appeal – The court reiterated that the burden lies on the appellant to satisfactorily explain the delay, especially when it is inordinate. (Paras 26, 27)
Facts of the case: The petitioners-appellants sought to condone a delay of 1244 days in filing an appeal against a judgment and decree dated 27.09.2019, claiming ignorance of the judgment due to reliance on their counsel. (Paras 1, 3)
Findings of Court: The court found that the petitioners had received notices and were aware of the proceedings but failed to act diligently, thus not justifying the delay. (Paras 25, 28)
Issues: Whether there was sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing the appeal. (Para 8)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioners did not demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay, emphasizing the importance of diligence in legal proceedings. (Paras 25, 28)
Result: I.A. No. 02 of 2023 is dismissed; consequently, the Appeal Suit is rejected.
JUDGMENT :
G. RADHA RANI, J.
1. This application is filed by the petitioners-appellants to condone the delay of (1244) days in filing the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 27.09.2019 in O.S. No. 79 of 2015 on the file of I Additional District Judge at Mahabubnagar.
2. Heard Sri V. Yadu Krishna Sainath, learned counsel for the petitioners-appellants and Sri S.R. Mahzeed, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Ahmed Ehtesham Kawkab, learned counsel for the respondent on record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners-appellants submitted that the petitioners filed the above appeal against the judgment and decree dated 27.09.2019 in O.S. No. 79 of 2015 on the file of I Additional District Judge at Mahabubnagar. The petitioners engaged a counsel and he assured them that he would take care of the matter and that he would inform them as and when their presence was required for evidence. Reposing confidence on his words, they were in constant touch with their counsel. However, they were never called to the court for their evidence. Recently, in the Month of June, 2023, the petitioners were informed that they lost the case and the judgment was passed in favour of the respondent herein. As the petitioners were illiterates they depended on their counsel. The petitioners were anticipating that the judgment would be passed in their favour as they had good grounds and as the agreement of sale was fabricated. Recently, they approached another counsel and submitted the suit papers which were served on them along with summons. The counsel enquired in the court and informed them that the petitioners were set ex-parte and the court passed the judgment and decree on 27.09.2019 itself. The respondent filed Execution Proceedings before the court. In fact, the judgment and decree dated 27.09.2019 was not within the knowledge of the petitioners and they could not file the appeal within time. Therefore, there was a delay of (1244) days in filing the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 27.09.2019 in O.S. No. 79 of 2015 on the file of I Additional District Judge at Mahabubnagar, which was neither wilful nor wanton, except due to the reasons stated above. If the present application was not allowed the petitioners-appellants would be put to hardship, mental agony and irreparable loss and prayed to condone the delay of (1244) days in filing the appeal.
4. Sri S.R. Mahzeed, learned Senior Counsel representing the respondent submitted that the delay was not calculated properly. The judgment and decree was passed on 27.09.2019 in O.S. No. 79 of 2015 and the appeal along with the affidavit were signed by the petitioners on 05.07.2023 i.e. after (1377) days of passing the judgment and decree. After deducting (90) days period for filing the appeal, the delay would come to (1287) days, but not (1244) days. The appellants for their wrongs were accusing their advocate intentionally, who appeared for them before the lower court, whereas the counsel took proper care of the matter and informed the petitioners-appellants about the progress of the case from time to time. He also sent notices to the petitioners and filed proof of communication between him and the petitioners-appellants before the lower court. The petitioners-appellants had not taken any action against the advocate by filing complaint against him before the Bar council. The appellants-defendants and their family members were well aware of all the proceedings at all stages of the suit vide O.S. No. 79 of 2015 and Execution Petition, but placed themselves deliberately away from the proceedings. They received summons and notices at every stage of the suit and the Execution Petition. They received notices in the suit as well as in the Execution Petition and from their counsel appearing for them and also received notices from the courts. Their affidavit was vague and there was no justifiable explanation for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal more particularly, the day to day delay was no
The court emphasized that mere reliance on counsel does not justify inordinate delay in filing an appeal; sufficient cause must be shown by the appellant.
Sufficient cause must be shown for condoning delay in appeals; mere allegations of fraud without detailed substantiation are inadequate.
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.
substantial delay cannot be condoned by mere shifting of the blame on the counsel since the parties are required to keep track of the matter and there was also negligence on the facts of that case de....
The applicant's failure to take appropriate steps despite knowing the delay and the opportunity to challenge the ex parte decree was a key factor in the court's decision to reject the application for....
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
