A litigant cannot seek condonation of inordinate delay by solely blaming the negligence of their counsel, as the party has an independent duty to remain vigilant regarding their own judicial proceedings.

ORDER:

Challenging the correctness and legality of the order passed by the Principal District Judge, Nellore in Interlocutory Application No.1197 of 2018 in an unnumbered Appeal Suit, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. Interlocutory Application No.1 of 2024 is filed seeking condonation of delay of 1876 days in filing the Civil Revision Petition.

2. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff and respondent herein is the defendant in O.S.275 of 2013 on the file of the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore.

3. The petitioner, being the plaintiff, filed O.S. No.275 of 2013 for recovery of money based on a promissory note. The said suit was dismissed on merits on 14.02.2018. Aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful plaintiff preferred an appeal along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking to condone the delay of 203 days in filing the appeal, however, the same was dismissed on 19.03.2019 on the ground that the petitioner failed to explain the delay properly. Assailing the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed along with an application seeking to condone the delay of 1876 days in filing the CRP.

4. Heard Sri N.S.Rupesh, learned counsel, representing Sri Venkata Rao Penumaka, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt Marella Radha, learned counsel for the respondent.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application and the grounds of revision, contended that the first appellate Court failed to apply its mind properly while dealing with the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. He further submitted that the counsel, who appeared on behalf of the petitioner before the first appellate Court, did not inform the petitioner in time about the status of the case and the orders passed therein and thereby the said delay occurred. He further submitted that as held by various High Courts, it is not necessary to explain each and every day’s delay, particularly when valuable rights of the parties are involved and that dismissal of the application solely on the ground of delay is unsustainable under law. He further contended that if the said delay is not condoned, the petitioner’s valuable rights would be seriously prejudiced and he would be deprived of the opportunity to contest the appeal. Hence, prayed to allow the application by imposing costs to compensate the delay.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner cannot throw the burden on his counsel and as held in several judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the delay must be explained day to day. She further contended that the petitioner has failed to satisfactorily explain each day’s delay and the Interlocutory Application is vague and bereft of valid reasons. Hence, prayed to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition. In support of her contention, she relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Majji Sannemma Alias Sanyasirao v. Reddy Sridevi ¹(2021) 18 Supreme Court Cases 384.

7. Pursed the record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

8. As could be seen from the affidavit filed in support of the Interlocutory Application for condonation of delay before the first appellate Court, the petitioner stated that as his counsel became sick and remained ou