HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY I.A.NO.1 OF 2025 IN/AND SECOND APPEAL NO.200 OF 2025

COMMON JUDGMENT:

This Second Appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 19.06.2019 passed in A.S.No.89 of 2014 on the file of XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, R.R.District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad, whereby and where under, the judgment and decree dated 08.07.2013 in O.S.No.1310 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, R.R.District at L.B.Nagar was confirmed. As there is delay of 2043 days in preferring the present Appeal, the petitioner/appellant filed I.A.No.1 of 2025 to condone the said delay.

2. Heard Sri N.Ravi, learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant.

3. Without referring to the merits of the present appeal, it is appropriate to first consider the I.A.No.1 of 2025 filed for condonation of delay of 2043 days in preferring the appeal.

4. The learned counsel for petitioner/appellant would submit that the petitioner herein is a defendant in O.S.No.1310 of 2009 which was filed for perpetual injunction and the said suit was decreed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 03.06.2009. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner/appellant and others preferred first appeal in A.S.No.89 of 2014 on the file of XIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, R.R.District at L.B.Nagar and the same was also dismissed by the first Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 19.06.2019, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 08.07.2013, present appeal is filed along with an application vide I.A.No.2 of 2025 to condone the delay of 2043 days in preferring the second appeal.

5. The only point to be considered by this Court is whether the petitioner could make out a case for condonation of inordinate delay of 2043 days in preferring the appeal.

6. In the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay, it is mentioned that after dismissal of A.S.No.89 of 2014 dated 19.06.2019 appellant intended to file the second appeal but due to Corona virus and total lock down imposed by the Government and as appellant himself affected with corona virus he was totally bed-ridden and apart from the above said circumstances, appellant was suffering with old age ailments due to which appellant was almost confined to bed till March, 2024. It is further contended that after his partial recovery, he contacted the counsel on record in the trial Court and obtained the certified copies on 15.04.2025 and contacted his counsel to prefer the second appeal, by then, there occurred a delay of 2043 days in filing the present second appeal.

7. Except stating that appellant came to know about passing of the judgement and decree in A.S.No.89 of 2014 and further due to covid lockdown and old age ailments, he could not contact her counsel in preferring the present appeal, no valid and cogent reasons have been assigned by the petitioner/appellant for condonation of inordinate delay of 2043 days and no material is placed in proof of said averments. Appeal was dismissed much prior to Covid-19 pandemic period and no reasons have been assigned as to what prevented the petitioner/appellant from preferring of appeal prior to Covid pandemic period.

8. From the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the condonation application, it is evident that appellant is not diligent in pursuing the matter and further, failed to offer cogent, plausible reasons for condonation of inordinate delay of 2043 days in preferring the appeal.

9. In Basawaraj and another v. Special Land Acquisition

1 Officer , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:

“11. The expression “sufficient cause” should be given a liberal interpretation to ensure that substantial justice is done, but only so long as negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides cannot be imputed to the party concerned, whether or not sufficient cause has been furnished, can be decided on the facts of a particular

1 20