HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY I.A.NO.2 OF 2025 IN/AND SECOND APPEAL NO.150 OF 2025

COMMON JUDGMENT:

This Second Appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 12.03.2012 in A.S.No.19 of 2019 on the file of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge at Siddipet, Medak District, whereby and where under, the judgment and decree dated 03.06.2009 in O.S.No.38 of 2004 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Siddipet, was confirmed. As there is delay of 4333 days in preferring the present Appeal, the petitioner/appellant filed I.A.No.2 of 2025 to condone the said delay.

2. Heard Sri M.Lalitha Prasad Rao, 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.2 of 2025 filed for condonation of delay of 4333 days in preferring the appeal.

4. The learned counsel for petitioner/appellant would submit that respondent No.1 herein filed a suit in O.S.No.38 of 2004 for declaration of title and for perpetual injunction in respect of the land admeasuring 626 square yards in Sy.No.1839 of Siddipet Town and Revenue Mandal, Medak District (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit schedule property’) against the petitioner/appellant and others 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.19 of 2009 on the file of VI Additional District Judge at Siddipet, Medak District and the same was also dismissed by the first Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 12.03.2012, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 12.03.2012, present appeal is filed. Along with the Second Appeal, petitioner filed application vide I.A.No.2 of 2025 to condone the delay of 4333 days in preferring the second appeal.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner/appellant would submit that petitioner/appellant came to know about passing of the judgment and decree in A.S.No.19 of 2009 and immediately, she contacted her counsel before the first Appellate Court and her counsel opined that appeal has to be filed, however, due to lack of knowledge and financial constraint, petitioner could not contact her counsel at Hyderabad in preferring the present appeal. Learned counsel would further submit that valuable rights of the petitioner in immovable property are involved and if the delay is not condoned, she would suffer irreparable loss and hardship and therefore, prayed to allow the application.

6. The only point to be considered by this Court is whether the petitioner could make out a case for condonation of inordinate delay of 4333 days in preferring the appeal.

7. In the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay, it is mentioned that petitioner recently came to know about passing of the judgment and decree dated 12.03.2023 in A.S.No.19 of 2009 and that she contacted her counsel before the first Appellate Court and on his advice, she has preferred present appeal. It is further averred that due to lack of knowledge and financial constraint, petitioner could not contact her counsel at Hyderabad in preferring the present appeal and thus, the delay of 4333 days in preferring the present appeal is occasioned.

8. Except stating that petitioner came to know about passing of the judgement and decree in A.S.No.19 of 2009 and further due to lack of knowledge and financial constraint, she could not contact her counsel at Hyderabad in preferring the present appeal, no valid and cogent reasons have been assigned by the petitioner for condonation of inordinate delay of 4333 days. Petitioner even failed to specify the date, on which she came to know about passing of judgment and decree in A.S.No.19 of 2009 and on which date, she contacted her counsel, who appeared before the first Appellate Court and thus, the contentions in the affidavit are vague and bereft of details.

9. From