THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1558 of 2019

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner – appellant aggrieved by the order dated 11.12.2018 passed in I.A.No.1908 of 2018 in the un-registered Appeal Suit by the learned Principal District Judge, Warangal.

2 Heard Sri C.N.Moorthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.K.Preethi, learned counsel representing Smt.N.Kamala, learned counsel for the respondent on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had filed I.A.No.1908 of 2018 under Order XLI Rule 3-A of CPC read with Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay of 278 days in preferring the appeal suit. The petitioner stated in her affidavit filed along with the petition that she gave birth to a female baby on 08.08.2018 at Lavanya Hospital, Hanmakonda, Warangal and for several months she was on bed rest due to severe Lumbago lower backache with Sciatica and could not move from bed. Later on, the child also developed severe pediatric ailments and was hospitalized several times, for which reason, she could not contact her counsel for the past one year and that when she contacted her counsel, she learned about the passing of the impugned judgment and decree and was advised to file an appeal against the same, due to which the delay of 278 days occurred from 24.12.2017 to 27.09.2018. But the learned Principal District Judge, Warangal dismissed the said I.A observing that no document was filed in proof of her ill health.

3.1. Learned cousnel for the petitioner further submitted that he enclosed the medical certificate and medical record of the petitioner along with this revision petition and further contended that the dismissal of the condone delay application would amount to rejecting the appeal without hearing, as such prayed to allow the revision by setting aside the impugned order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Warangal in I.A.No.1908 of 2018 dated

11.12.2018.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand contended that the medical record of the petitioner was not filed along with the application in I.A.No.1908 of 2018. The judgment in O.S.No.489 of 2010 was passed by the learned VII Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal on contest on merits on 06.10.2017, but the petitioner gave birth to a baby girl on 08.08.2018, several months later, as such no proper explanation was given by the petitioner for condoning the delay. The learned Principal District Judge, Warangal on considering all the aspects dismissed the application. There was no illegality in the order of the learned Principal District Judge, Warangal to set aside the same and prayed to dismiss the CRP.

5. Perused the record.

6. The record would disclose that the petitioner herein was the defendant in O.S.No.489 of 2010. The respondent – plaintiff filed O.S.No.489 of 2010 seeking the relief of perpetual injunction and the said suit was disposed of on merits on 06.10.2017 by the learned VII Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal decreeing the same with costs. Aggrieved by which, the defendant preferred an appeal and as there was a delay of 278 days in filing the appeal, filed an application under Order XLI Rule 3-A of CPC read with Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963.

7. An appeal was a statutory right of the parties. Condonation of delay is a discretionary power held by the Court. The Hon’ble Apex Court in several cases held that liberal approach should be adopted in interpreting “sufficient cause” for condoning the delay and held that the interpretation should aim to ensure justice by not allowing technical errors or procedural hurdles to prevent a fair hearing of a case. Condonation of delay is an exception to the rule of limitation which sets dead lines for legal actions. By interpreting the term “sufficient cause” in a liberal manner, the Courts would accept a party’s explanation for the delay rather than strictly adhering to the time limits. When