HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

COMMON ORDER

The application in IA.No.1 of 2025 is filed seeking to condone the delay of 4717 days in filing the petition to set aside the abatement that caused due to non-impleadment of legal representatives of deceased appellant No.1 in the Second Appeal.

2. In the affidavit, filed in support of the application, the petitioners/proposed appellants have stated the following reasons for the delay:

“I humbly submitted that, during the pronouncement of the Judgment by the Appellate Court, at that time my mother was admitted into NIMS Hospital, Panjagutta suffering with Brain Tumor and my mother was expired on 6.5.2012. I further humbly subrnit that, the petition to implead the legal representatives of deceased 1st Appellant had to be filed within 90 days from the date of death. I could not file such application within time since recently on 15.11.2024 when I dismantled my house I have shifted the all household articles including Iron Alamarah in my house. At that time I have opened Iron Alamarah and then only I found that the court case papers found, which present Appeal suit was filed by my mother before the Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge, Zaheerabad in A.S.No.9 of 2008 against the Judgment and decree passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Zaheerabad in O.S.No.115 of 2003.”

3. The proposed appellants claim to be legal heirs of the deceased-appellant No.1, i.e., proposed appellant Nos.2 and 5 are daughters and proposed appellant Nos.3 and 4 are sons. The deponent of the affidavit is said to be one of the sons of the deceased appellant No.1. It is not the case of the deponent that deceased-appellant No.1 had been living all alone, i.e., not living with her sons or daughters, prior to her death on 06.05.2012. In such an event, at any rate, it cannot be believed or even there is no preponderance of probability that the legal heirs of deceased- appellant No.1 were not aware about the legal proceedings initiated by their mother i.e., about dismissal of the suit filed by her mother and thereafter, the Appeal preferred by her before the First Appellate Court. The Appeal vide AS.No.39 of 2007 (re-numbered as AS.No.9 of 2008) preferred by deceased-appellant No.1 before the First Appellate Court was dismissed on 11.04.2012, i.e., nearly after four years from the date of filing of the Appeal. Therefore, when it is not the case of the proposed appellants that they have abandoned their mother, who is allegedly suffering with brain tumour, or living separately, they cannot be oblivious of the fact of her losing the suit-OS.No.115 of 2003 at the first instance and thereafter, filing of Appeal by her before the First Appellate Court. 4. If the case is viewed from that angle, the reason shown by the petitioners/proposed appellants that only during the shifting of their house on 15.11.2024, they found the court case papers in the almarah and thus, came to know about filing of the Appeal by their mother cannot be even remotely believed to be true. The said reason shown by the petitioners/proposed appellants for condonation of inordinate delay of about 13 years is vague and lacks bona fides. No prudent person can be ignorant or oblivious of the events/incidents/situations that are going in their house. Therefore, negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides can be imputed to the petitioners in approaching this Court, which disentitles them from seeking indulgence of this Court as the cause shown by them does not constitute “sufficient cause”. This view of this Court is fortified by the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Basawaraj and another v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, 2013 (14) SCC 81 and Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others, (2013) 12 SCC 649

5. In Baswararj’s case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:

“The expression “sufficient cause” should be given a liberal interpretation to ensure that substantial justice is done, but only so long as negligence,