The court emphasized that reasons for condonation of delay must demonstrate due diligence and not be routine business challenges, confirming the lower court's dismissal of the petition.

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner – appellant aggrieved by the order dated 25.01.2019 passed in I.A.No.1026 of 2018 in dismissing the petition filed for condonation of delay of 274 days in filing the appeal.

2. Heard Ms.P.Deepthi, learned counsel representing Sri A.Krishnam Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner on record – State Bank of India (ADB), Cherial Branch, represented by its Branch Manager and Sri J.Kanakaiah, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that O.S.No.98 of 2012 was filed by the respondent - plaintiff on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon, claiming damages. The said suit was decreed on 19.06.2017. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the petitioner preferred an appeal. But, the appeal could not be preferred within the stipulated period of time due to pressure of work, shortage of staff and disbursing of loans to farmers, self help groups and conduction of regular audit, as such, there occurred a delay of 274 days and the petitioner preferred I.A.No.1026 of 2018. But the learned Principal District Judge, Warangal dismissed the same without following the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in GMG Engineering Industries and Others v. ISSA Green Power Solution and Others , [(2015) 15 SCC 659] that the discretion has to be exercised by the Court liberally, but not arbitrarily. The learned Principal District Judge ought to have noted that there was no willful negligence or lack of bonafides on the part of the appellant bank officials in not filing the appeal within the time. The reason assigned in the impugned order was inappropriate. The Branch Manager had given an undertaking to pay the amount in EP as a warrant of attachment was brought to the Branch to attach the movables such as Computers, etc., and the bailiff informed the bank officials that he would be constrained to take those movables into his custody. In the said circumstances, an undertaking was given by the Branch Manager to avoid any operational difficulties. The learned Principal District Judge without considering the circumstances under which the undertaking was given, precluded the bank in preferring the appeal and prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the order of the learned Principal District Judge, Warangal passed in I.A.No.1026 of 2018 in UR.AS dated 25.01.2019.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mool Chandra v. Union of India and Another , [(2025) 1 SCC 625] wherein it was held that while deciding an application for condonation of delay, the merits of the case ought not to have gone into.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand contended that no sufficient cause was explained by the petitioner for condoning the delay of 274 days in filing the appeal. The Bank had come up with the present petition only to avoid the payment of decreetal amount. The Bank Authorities had knowledge about the proceedings. The Bank Manager had given an undertaking on 05.06.2018 that they would pay the decreetal amount by 26.06.2018 when the bailiff went with the attachment warrant. But till date, no amount was deposited before the trial court or paid to the respondent. The learned Principal District Judge on considering all the aspects had dismissed the petition, which would not require any interference by this Court in the revision and prayed to dismiss the revision.

6. Perused the record.

7. As seen from the affidavit filed by the Branch Manager of State Bank of India (ADB), Cherial Branch filed along with I.A.No.1026 of 2018, it was only stated