THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA

I.A.No.1 OF 2019

IN/AND

APPEAL SUIT No.339 OF 2019

COMMON JUDGMENT:

Heard Sri G.Balesh, learned counsel for the

petitioners/appellants and Sri A.Narasimharao, learned counsel for

the respondents. Perused the record.

2. I.A.No.1 of 2019 is filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay of 1444 days in filing the appeal against the decree and judgment dated 23.01.2015 in O.S.No.673 of 2010 (Old O.S.No.1032 of 2002 on the file of IV Additional District Judge,

Ranga Reddy District, L.B. Nagar.

3. As per the affidavit filed, the one and only reason cited for delay is that the petitioners have entrusted the case to their counsel and he assured to take care of the case. The petitioners have filed their written statement and thereafter neither did they enquire about the status of the case nor did their counsel inform them about the same. In the circumstances, the suit was decreed on 23.01.2015 followed by serving of notice in E.P.No.1010 of 2018 from the IV Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B. Nagar. Only when the notice in E.P. was served, the petitioners made enquiry and have

learnt about the disposal of the case. Further, the petitioners have also learnt that no evidence was adduced on their behalf. Only after receiving notice in the E.P., the petitioners have applied for certified copy and filed the appeal with a delay of 1444 days.

4. Respondent No.1 filed counter-affidavit alleging that the affidavit does not cite any reasonable ground to condone the delay and that no case is made out for condoning the extra-ordinary delay of 1444 days except for levelling allegations against the counsel.

5. Now the point for consideration is, whether the petitioners are entitled to the relief as prayed for i.e. condoning the delay of 1444 days in filing the appeal?

6. The singular point raised during arguments is that the appeal could not be filed on account of their counsel not informing about the status of the case. This ground, according to the petitioners, is valid and sufficient to condone the inordinate delay of 1444 days. Further, it is argued that technical reasons or numbers should not come in the way of rendering substantial justice causing harm to the litigants.

7. Whereas respondent No.1 argued that sufficient cause has to be shown for condoning the delay, that too for inordinate delay of 1444 days. In that respect, learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao v. Reddy Sridevi and others, (2021) 18 SCC 384 and also relied on the judgment of High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in Yerramsetti Mangayamma v. Medisetti Abbai and others2, to oppose condoning the delay.

8. This Court having perused the affidavit and the counter- affidavit, finds that the suit was filed in the year 2002, renumbered in the year 2010, that the petitioners came on record in the year 2006 and have filed written statement. Ever since filing of the written statement on the premise that the counsel is taking care of the case, the petitioners did not evince interest in prosecuting the case. The petitioners can rely upon the counsel to certain extent but not for years indefinitely when there is no response from the counsel. 9. In the instant case, suit filed in the year 2002 was disposed of in the year 2015 and E.P. was filed in the year 2018. The petitioners who came on record in the year 2006 remained oblivious of the proceedings of the case till the year 2018, until receiving of notice in the E.P. Such conduct can by no means be deemed to be reasonable and the cause shown cannot be deemed to be sufficient. As such, there are no grounds of condone the inordinate delay of 1444 days.

2 (2014) 2 ALT 128

10. In the result, I.A.No.1 of 2019 is dismissed. Consequently, the Appeal Suit is rejected.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

____________________

RENUKA YARA, J Date: 13.06.2025 ssp