1 APHC010487012017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] FRIDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3217/2017 Between: 1. NEKKANTI SATYANARAYANA, S/O.LAKSHMINARAYANA, HINDU, AGED 61 YEARS, CULTIVATION, R/O.NADIPUDI, TDMC . 2. CHILUKURI MADHAVI,, W/O.NAGESWARARAO, HINDU, AGED 48 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, TIRUPATHI, TDMC. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. MELORKED VIJAYA LAKSHMI SANKAR, W/O.M.S.SANKAR, HINDU, HOUSE WIFE, AGED 66 YEARS, AURANDABAD, MAHARASHTRA. 2. NIMMAGADDA RAMARAJYAM, W/O.PADMA SEKHARA RAO, HINDU, HOUSE WIFE, AGED 64 YEARS, SEETHAMMADHAR, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased toagainst the order dated 23-02-2017 passed in I.A.No.1158 of 2013 in A.S.S.R.No.5878 of 2013 on the file of the court of the Principal District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. P DURGA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3217/2017 ORDER: The Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 23.02.2017 passed in I.A.No.1158 of 2013 in A.S.S.R.No.5878 of 2013 on the file of the court of the Principal District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. 3. The petitioners herein are the defendants and the respondents herein are plaintiffs in the suit. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the plaintiffs filed a suit and the said suit was decreed in the month of June, 2011. The said decree and judgment was assailed by way of ASSR No.5878 of 2013 before the Principal District Judge, West Godavari by filing delay petition with a delay of 630 days i.e., from 06.09.2011 to 05.06.2013. The said delay petition was dismissed by the lower appellate court on 23.02.2017. Thus, the said dismissal order dated 23.02.2017 was assailed by way of this Revision Petition. 5. After filing the Revision Petition, the same was not pursued by the petitioners herein after 2017. After one adjournment i.e., on 21.07.2017, the matter posted after one week i.e., 26.07.2017. The revision petition is pending nearly from a decade with the court. 3 6. Now, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the petition for condoning the delay was dismissed by the lower appellate court even though the reasons were duly explained for the delay, the said order is liable to be set aside. 7. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and on perusal of the material placed on record, the lower appellate Court held that the petitioners did not explain the due reasons for delay of two years in filing the appeal. Except stating health reasons and visiting of Bombay, the petitioners did file any material evidence to show or prove that the delay was caused due to legitimate reasons. It is settled law that when delay is occurred in filing statutory appeal, every day of delay should be explained with reasonable and sufficient reasons along with evidence. In the instant case, except stating in the affidavit, no material was placed before this Court to convenience the Court that the delay caused by the petitioners was duly explained. This Court further observed that the suit itself was decreed in the year 2011 and that the petitioners had not diligently prosecuted the revision petition for a period of nine years. Now, if the petition for condonation of delay is allowed, it would result in reopening the matter after more than one and a half decades from the date of the judgment and decree. Pursuant to the said judgment and decree, the rights of the parties have already been settled, now the petitioners seeking to unsettle the same, after an inordinate lapse of one and a half decades. Therefore, such long- 4 settled issues cannot be unsettled, without there being any reasons and proper grounds put forth before the Court. 8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 19.06.2026 TTPPSS//BBSSPP 5 83 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3217/2017 19.06.2026 TTPPSS//BBSSPP