The court ruled that delays in filing an appeal must be supported by compelling evidence, and unsatisfactory explanations can lead to dismissal of the request for condonation.

JUDGMENT :

RENUKA YARA, J.

1. Heard Sri B. Balaji, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri M. Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for respondents, on admission. Perused the record.

2. This Second Appeal is preferred challenging the judgment and decree dated 24.08.2020 in A.S.No.43 of 2017 on the file of the VI Additional District Judge, Mahabubabad, Warangal (‘First Appellate Court’), confirming the judgment and decree dated 30.01.2017 in O.S.No.64 of 2008 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubabad (‘Trial Court’), wherein the suit filed seeking specific performance of Agreement of Sale, dated 23.08.2007 and to direct the appellant/defendant to execute a registered sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property, has been decreed.

3. Along with the Second Appeal, I.A.No.1 of 2025 is filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act in the present appeal to condone delay of 1621 days in filing of the Second Appeal.

4. The reasons cited for condoning the delay are Covid pandemic up to February, 2020, lack of proper information from the counsel on record and financial constraints. The appellant came to know about the judgment and decree passed on 24.08.2020 in the last week of April, 2025 when the Advocate Commissioner came to demarcate the suit schedule property. Only in the last week of April, 2025, the appellant learned about the impugned judgment and therefore, the Second Appeal is filed with a delay of 1621 days. In that regard, reliance is placed on judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Miscellaneous Application Nos. 21 of 2022 and 665 of 2021 in SMW (C) No. 3 of 2020, wherein, limitation period was excluded from 15.03.2020 up to 28.02.2022 on account of Covid pandemic. Further, reliance is placed on judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others , (2013) 12 SCC 649 , wherein, it is held as follows:

“20. In B. Madhuri Goud v. B. Damodar Reddy [2012) 12 SCC 693], the Court referring to earlier decisions reversed the decision of the learned single Judge who had condoned delay of 1236 days as the explanation given in the application for condonation of delay was absolutely fanciful.

21. From the aforesaid authorities, the principles that can broadly be culled out are: ……..

21.9 The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach.”

5. Further, the learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation v. Nafeesa Mirza and others , I.A. No. 1 of 2022 in CCCA No. 68 of 2022, wherein, reference is made to judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Collector (LA) v. Katiji, (1987) 2 SCC 107 as below:

“12. …

(2) Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.

(3) ‘Every day’s delay must be explained’ does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour’s delay, every second’s delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner.”

6. Lastly, the learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the