2025:APHC:54320 APHC010405022019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3209]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION NO: 19473/2019 Between:

1. A DAVIKATLA APPA RAO,, S/O KRUPANANDAM, LINE INSPECTOR IN APSPDCL,TIRUVURU R/O TIRUVURU TOWN, NUZIVID MANDAL,KRISHNA DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER AND

1. T HE APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE (REGISTRATION AND STAMPS)

DEPARTMENT A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI GUNTUR DIST.

2. T HE CHITS ARBITRATOR/DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CHITS, 0/O REGISTRAR OF CHITS, VIJAYAWADA,KRISHNA DISTRICT.

3. S HRIRAM CHITS PRIVATE LIRNITED, NUZVID BRANCH, KRISHNA DISTRICT,REP.BY ITS G.P.A. HOLDER AND SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANGER B.RAVINDRA NATH,S/O B.R.V.KRISHNA RAN, AGED-34 YEARS,PARK ROAD,GUDIVADA,KRISHNA DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT(S):

1. KALLA TULASI DURGAMBA

1. GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS (AP)

2. O UDAYA KUMAR The Court made the following Order:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. O Udaya Kumar, learned counsel representing the respondent No.3.

2. The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated

09.09.2019 passed by the respondent No.1 on various grounds.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of the respondent No.1 in rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the award of the respondent No.2 is not tenable. She submits that under Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, the respondent No.1-Appellate Authority has power to condone the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. However, without exercising the said power and appreciating the reasons for delay, the impugned order has been passed. She further contends that the order under challenge is bereft of reasons and on that ground also, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 placed a decision of a learned Judge of this Court dated 10.01.2025 passed in W.P No.28392 of 2024 for perusal of this Court and contends that in the light of the said decision, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record.

6. In the decision referred to above, similar contentions like in the present case, more particularly with reference to the Limitation Act were raised. The learned Judge after extensively referring to the relevant provisions including Section 29 of the Limitation Act and the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as also the relevant rules (Chit Fund Rules), 1984, held as follows:-

“37. …As considered supra, the Chit Funds Act or/and the Rules do not make application of the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Neither the provisions of the Limitation Act are applicable under Section 70 of the Chit Funds Act nor it specifically provides the power for condonation of delay under Section 70 of the Chit Funds Act by the appellate authority. The Limitation Act does not apply to the proceeding under Section 70 of the Chit Funds Act. Therefore, the plea of the petitioner for condonation of delay in making the appeal, was not liable to be accepted.

38. Following Baleshwar Dayal Jaiswal (supra) for the discussion made, I hold that Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act is not applicable to the Chit Funds Act, to condone the delay in filing the appeal by the appellate authority, under Section 70 of the Chit Fund Act. The appellate authority therefore has no power neither under the Chit Funds Act read with its Rules nor by virtue of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the appeal under Section

70 of the Chit Funds Act.”

7. In the light of the above decision, this Writ Petition is liable to the dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_________________________