Back
2025 Supreme(Telangana) 1161
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
RENUKA YARA, J.
M Venkat Reddy - Appellant
Versus
M Sathi Reddy - Respondent
Second Appeal No.277 of 2024
Decided On : 02-09-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : T Sharath
For the Respondent: R Nagarjuna Reddy
The legal principle established is that delay in filing an appeal may be condoned if there is sufficient cause, even in the absence of detailed documentation, especially in light of the appellant's age and circumstances.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VII Rule 11 - Section 151 - Delay in filing appeal - Application to condone delay of 12 days dismissed by first appellate Court - Appeal concerns cancellation of earlier judgments affecting agricultural land rights - The appellant, aged 73, cited illness and legal advice in explanation for delay - Reviewing the perverse findings of the lower court, the appellant's right to appeal was determined to be valid despite procedural deficiencies. (Paras 3, 4, 5, 13, 15, 17)
(B) Legal principles regarding the interpretation of 'sufficient cause' for condoning delay were discussed, referencing the liberal construction required under the Limitation Act - Emphasis on no presumption of mala fides unless clearly demonstrated, considering age and circumstances of the appellant. (Paras 6, 10, 12)
(C) The court also reaffirmed that the refusal to condone delays must be grounded in a reasonable interpretation of the circumstances, holding that the appellant's failure to disclose certain information was not a justifiable ground for dismissal. (Paras 14, 16)
Facts of the case:
The appellant filed suit for cancellation of prior judgments due to alleged fraud regarding property rights. The trial Court rejected the plaint, leading to an appeal where the request to condone delay was dismissed.
Findings of Court:
The delay imposed was deemed sufficiently explained, and the perverse nature of the first appellate Court's decisions warranted intervention.
Issues: The critical questions involved the grounds for denying the condone delay application and the legitimacy of the prior judgments affecting the appellant's land rights.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the facts presented by the appellant demonstrated reasonable circumstances to warrant condoning the delay, hence the right to appeal should not be curtailed unnecessarily.
Result: Second Appeal partly allowed, condoning the delay of 12 days in filing the first appeal.
JUDGMENT :
RENUKA YARA, J.
Heard Sri T. Sharath, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Tarun G. Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4. Perused the entire record.
2. This Second Appeal is preferred aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 16.11.2023 in I.A.No.2799 of 2023 in A.S.SR.No.13388 of 2023 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar (‘first appellate Court’), wherein the application filed to condone delay of 12 days in filing the first appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 02.08.2023 in I.A.No.269 of 2022 in O.S.No.21 of 2016 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar (‘trial Court’), whereby the petition filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was allowed rejecting the plaint, was dismissed.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant herein filed suit vide O.S.No.21 of 2016 on the file of the trial Court seeking cancellation of judgment and decree in O.S.No.288 of 1981, dated 30.03.1982 on the file of the District Munsiff West and South Court, Hyderabad, along with consequential reliefs to declare sale deeds i.e., sale deed document bearing No.6454 of 1985, dated 12.09.1985 in favour of defendant No.1/respondent No.2 herein and consequent sale deed document bearing No.2256 of 2003, dated 04.04.2003 in favour defendant Nos.2 and 3/respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein as null and void and to grant perpetual injunction. Upon filing of the said suit, defendant No.5/respondent No.1 herein filed I.A.No.269 of 2022 in O.S.No.21 of 2016 before the Trial Court under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of C.P.C., to reject the plaint. The said interlocutory application was allowed vide order dated 02.08.2023 and plaint was rejected. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant herein preferred appeal along with condone delay application vide I.A.No.2799 of 2023 in A.S.SR.No.13388 of 2023 to condone delay of 12 days in filing the appeal before the first appellate Court. The first appellate Court dismissed the aforesaid interlocutory application filed seeking to condone delay vide order dated 16.11.2023 and consequently, the first appeal was also dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant herein filed a Civil Revision Petition before this Court in C.R.P.No.3523 of 2023, which was dismissed as not maintainable as an appeal has to be preferred against the judgment and decree dated 16.11.2023 passed by the first appellate Court. In the said circumstances, the appellant herein filed the present Second Appeal along with I.A.No.1 of 2024 to condone delay of 132 days in filing the Second Appeal. This Court vide common order dated 08.11.2024 dismissed the condone delay application and consequently, rejected the Second Appeal. The said dismissal order was challenged by the appellant herein before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal Nos.6648-6649 of 2025 arising out of SLP (C) Nos.30478-30479 of 2024. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 13.05.2025 by setting aside the common order passed by this Court dated 08.11.2024 condoned the delay of 132 days and restored the present Second Appeal to its original number. Currently, the order dated 16.11.2023 in I.A.No.2799 of 2023 in A.S.SR.No.13388 of 2023 passed by the first appellate Court is under challenge for refusal to condone delay of 12 days in filing the present first appeal.
4. The substantial questions of law raised in the present second appeal are whether the judgment and decree dated 16.11.2023 passed by the first appellate Court is perverse in dismissing the application filed to condone delay of 12 days depriving the appellant herein from exercising valuable statutory right of appeal.
5. During the arguments in the present Second Appeal, learned counsel for the appellant referred to paragraph No.11 of the impugned order dated 16.11.2023 where exception is taken to non-furnishing of the details of illness of th
