THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY C.R.P.No.2614 OF 2025

ORDER

:

Heard Mr. K.Venumadhav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.Manjari S. Ganu, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record.

2. The present is a civil revision petition which has been filed assailing the order dated 25.07.2025 passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in I.A.No.4212 of 2025 in ASSR No.17129 of 2025.

3. Vide the said impugned order, the learned Chief Judge has rejected the condone delay petition preferred by the petitioner/ appellant in the first appeal seeking for condonation of delay of

70 days.

4. The undisputed fact is that the petitioner is the tenant and the respondent is the landlord of the property. The landlord has filed a suit for eviction in O.S.No.4740 of 2021. The suit got decreed on 07.04.2025. The suit was decreed as a consequence of allowing of I.A.No.559 of 2023. I.A.No.559 of 2023 was a petition preferred by the plaintiff under Order XII Rule 6 CPC seeking for passing of a decree in the light of the admission made by the tenant/defendant in their written statement. The said interlocutory application as also the suit stood decided on 07.04.2025. The petitioner preferred an appeal with a delay of 70 days on 15.07.2025. The explanation given by the petitioner/appellant is that against the judgment and decree, he had initially sought for the certified copy of the order in I.A.No.559 of 2023 on 07.09.2025 which he obtained on 18.06.2025. However, thereafter he realized that he ought to have obtained certified copy of the judgment and decree as well for preferring the first appeal which he thereafter applied on 10.07.2025 and the same was obtained also on the same date and thereafter, the appeal was filed on 15.07.2025. The learned appellate Court, however, has rejected the condone delay petition of 70 days on the ground that there was no sufficient cause explained by the petitioner/appellant for not having preferred an application obtaining certified copy of the judgment and decree immediately after the certified copy was obtained on I.A.No.559 of 2023 and that there was a gap of around 22 days which has not been properly explained. Only on this ground, the condone delay petition and as a consequence, the appeal stood rejected.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the delay of 70 days at the first instance cannot be said to be in any manner inordinate and that the delay occurred because of the lapse on the part of the counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant before the trial Court who inadvertently at the first instance instead of obtaining certified copy of the impugned judgment and decree applied for the certified copy only of the order passed on I.A.No.559 of 2023 and, therefore, there was a bona fide reason on the part of the petitioner in incurring the delay in filing the appeal.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, opposing the petition submits that when a condone delay petition is filed, it is required for the applicant to explain each day’s delay which occurred in the process of filing of the appeal. Here, the petitioner has not been able to produce sufficient plausible explanation which also has to be satisfactory. In the absence of any plausible explanation which is satisfactory, the delay could not have been condoned by the trial Court and as such, the order under challenge does not warrant interference. As an alternative, the learned counsel for the respondent prays for an appropriate direction to the first appellate Court if the present civil revision petition is being allowed, to decide the appeal within a stipulated period as there are admitted facts which may not require further protracted litigation. The learned counsel for the respondent also submits that even otherwise the petitioner as on date is paying only the admitted meagre rent of Rs.10,000/- per month and the petitioner with the delay in filing the condone delay petiti