HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY SECOND APPEAL No.426 OF 2024

COMMON ORDER:

This application is filed to condone the delay of 154 days in filing the Appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 15.02.2024 in A.S.No.09 of 2023 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Siddipet.

2. Heard Sri M.S. Achyuth Bharathwaj, learned counsel for appellant and Sri R. Dheeraj Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.1.

3. Petitioner herein is defendant No.3 and respondent No.1 is plaintiff and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are defendants before the trial Court.

4. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff, filed suit in O.S.No.142 of 2013 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge at Siddipet and the same was decreed by judgment dated 30.01.2023. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, appellant herein preferred A.S.No.09 of 2023 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Siddipet and the first appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 15.02.2024 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the decree passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the present second appeal is filed along with application for condonation of the delay of 154 days in filing the appeal.

5. In the affidavit filed in support of the delay application, petitioner averred that judgment in the appeal was pronounced on 15.02.2024 and the application was filed on 21.03.2024 and the decree was furnished on the appellant on 22.03.2024; that petitioner met his counsel and entrusted the matter for filing second appeal and the same was made ready at the end of April, 2024, but the petitioner fell sick due to fever and the doctor advised her to take complete bed rest, therefore she could not take immediate steps to file appeal; that during summer vacation, close relative of the petitioner expired and after attending the funeral she again fell sick due to which she had to again take bed rest till July, 2024 and after gaining strength, she filed the present second appeal along with an application for condonation of 154 days. It is further averred that as substantial rights in immovable properties are involved and as the petitioner has fair chance of succeeding in the appeal, delay may be condoned and that no prejudice will be caused to the respondent.

6. Respondent No.1 filed counter denying the allegations made in the affidavit and contended that no proper reasons have been shown for condonation of abnormal delay of 154 days, and also failed to file supporting documents in proof of her illness; that the reasons assigned by the petitioner are vague, un-convincing, which demonstrate clear negligence on the part of the petitioner in approaching this Court, therefore, delay application is liable to be dismissed.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that trial Court as well as the first appellate Court has erroneously decreed the suit and petitioner has very good chance of succeeding in second appeal and since substantial rights in immovable property are involved, a liberal approach may be taken in condoning the delay. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that it is always appropriate and proper that matters be decided on merits rather than throwing out at threshold on technicalities. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that delay of 154 days in filing appeal is occasioned only because of illness and death of close relative of the petitioner and there is no deliberate or want on delay and thus, prayed to allow the delay application.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contended that except saying that petitioner fell sick in April and June, 2024, no material is placed on record in support of her contention. He further contended that reasons stated by the petitioner for condonation of delay are vague, unconvincing and the same cannot be considered as sufficient cause and there are clear laches and negligence on the part of the petitioner, hence, petitioner is not entitled to seek indu