HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

SECOND APPEAL No.2 of 2025

COMMON JUDGMENT:

I.A.No.1 of 2025 is filed to condone the delay of 2373 days

in filing the Second Appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated 02.04.2018 passed in A.S.No.16 of 2017 on the file of the

Court of the III Additional District Judge, Gadwal.

2. Heard Sri Bollu Nagaraju, learned counsel for the Appellant, learned counsel representing Sri Challa Srinivas

Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. It is represented by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent herein filed a suit for injunction in respect of land admeasuring Ac.3.14 guntas in Sy.No.57/A situated at Kurumurthy Village of C.C.Kunta Mandal, Mahabubnagar Mandal against the petitioner herein. The trial Court, after consideration of the entire material and evidence placed on record, decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 13.11.2017 in O.S.No.21 of 2012. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent herein preferred an Appeal in A.S.No.16 of 2017 on the file of the IIIrd Additional District Judge at Gadwal and the

S.A.No.2 of 2025 first appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 02.04.2018 allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court, the present Second Appeal is filed with a delay of 2373 days.

4. In the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay, it is contended that the petitioner engaged a counsel in the appeal and the appeal was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 02.04.2018, however, his counsel did not inform him about passing of the judgment and decree in the appeal. It is averred that due to ill-health and family issues, he could not follow up with his counsel and he was unaware of passing of the judgment in the appeal. It is further averred that in the month of October, 2024, he approached his counsel and enquired about the status of the appeal, and his counsel informed about passing of the judgment and decree in the appeal. Immediately, he filed an application on 05.10.2024 before the trial Court for obtaining certified copies and after obtaining the same, he approached this Court challenging the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court. It is further averred that as there is a delay of eight years in filing the S.A.No.2 of 2025 appeal, the present application is filed to condone the delay of 2373 days in filing the appeal and prayed to allow the application.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is not aware of the court proceedings as he was suffering from ill-health and because of pandemic situation due to COVID-19, he could not pursue the matter and enquire about the status of the appeal. He would further submit that the counsel engaged by the petitioner to contest the matter before the trial Court did not inform about passing of the judgment and decree in the appeal. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has a very good case on merits and therefore, prayed to allow the appeal.

6. The respondent did not file counter-affidavit however, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that there is inordinate delay in filing the appeal and the petitioner failed to explain delay of each day which is mandatory. He would further submit that except blaming the counsel, the petitioner utterly failed to explain the delay and further no material is placed in proof of his ill-health. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the application.

S.A.No.2 of 2025

7. Before adverting to merits of case, it is apt to examine the principles and parameters to be considered for condonation of delay. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India and another v. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) through his LR (SLP (Civil) No.21096 of 2019 dated 03.04.2024), by referring the judgment of the same Court in Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy & Others [(2013) 12 SCC 649], held