APHC010008882023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 67/2023 Between: 1. SMT VELUGUBANTLA PADMALATHA, W/O G. SREEHARI RAO, HINDU, AGED 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT SURYABAGH, BLOCK NO.1 QUARTER NO.I, VISAKHAPATNAM-2 ...PETITIONER AND 1. ADDALA SRINIVASA RAO, S/o Late Bennayya Achari, Hindu, aged 50 years, Flat No.503, Block-B, East Cost Apartment, Eastpoint Colony, Visakhapatnam ...RESPONDENT 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 to allow the CRP by setting aside the interlocutory order passed in IA No.1119/2019 in 0.S.10/2013 dated 04-01-2022 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge Court at Visakhapatnam IA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to condone the delay of 199 days in filing the and pass such IA NO: 2 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings in I.A.1119/2019 in 0.S.10/2013 dated 04-01-2022 by allowing the petition and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A A SWAMY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. The Court made the following: ::ORDER :: The plaintiff in the suit filed the above civil revision petition, assailing the order dated 04.01.2022 passed in I.A.No.111 of 2019 in O.S.No.10 of 2013 on the file of the learned II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. 2. Heard Ms. A. Naga Swetha, learned counsel representing Sri A.A. Swamy, learned counsel for the petitioner. Despite the service of notice, none appeared for the respondents. 3. The plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.10 of 2013 against the defendant seeking a perpetual injunction. The Trial Court dismissed the aforementioned suit ‘for default’, on 06.10.2015. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed I.A. to set aside the default order. Given the delay, he also filed an interlocutory application was filed to condone the delay of 973 days in filing the petition to set aside the default order dated 18.01.2016. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was pleaded that the suit, coming for trial and posted to 06.10.2015. On 06.10.2015, the petitioner could not attend the Court due to a strike by the Advocates. However, the same was not informed by the counsel to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner went to Hyderabad and stayed there till 10.01.2016. When the petitioner enquired of the counsel, the counsel, in turn, informed the petitioner that the suit was dismissed for default. It was further pleaded that initially, an application was filed on 18.01.2016. However, the same was not traced out. Thereafter, another interlocutory application was filed along with the condone delay petition of 973 days. The Trial Court dismissed the said application by order dated 04.01.2022. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Trial Court failed to appreciate the contents of the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the interlocutory petition. 5. The point for consideration is: “Whether the order dated 04.01.2022 passed in I.A.No.111 of 2019 in O.S.No.10 of 2013 on the file of the learned II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam suffers from any illegality? 6. As seen from the material available on record, the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.10 of 2013 seeking a perpetual injunction. The suit was coming up for trial and posted to 06.10.2015. On 06.10.2015, the petitioner could not attend the Court. Hence, the suit was dismissed for default. In the affidavit, though, the petitioner pleaded that initially an application was filed on 18.01.2016; however, the Trial Court, in its order, recorded a finding that no such application was filed. Along with the revision, no other material was filed to substantiate the contention of the revision petitioner regarding filing the I.A. immediately as pleaded. 7. While considering the application for condonation of delay, the Court has to see whether the petitioner assigned proper and sufficient cause. The primary consideration is not the length of delay but whether the explanation for the delay is satisfactory or bona fide. Thus, a party seeking to condone the delay must explain the delay properly by assigning sufficient cause. 8. In Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy1, the Hon’ble Apex Court broadly culled out the following principles: 1 (2013) 12 SCC 649 i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented, non- pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice. ii) The terms sufficient cause should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact- situation. iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis. iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of. v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact. vi) It is to be kept in mind that adherence to strict proof should not affect public justice and cause public mischief because the courts are required to be vigilant so that in the ultimate eventuate there is no real failure of justice. vii) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsule the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play. viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation. ix) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach. Page 5 of 7 x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such a litigation. xi) It is to be borne in mind that no one gets away with fraud, misrepresentation or interpolation by taking recourse to the technicalities of law of limitation. xii) The entire gamut of facts are to be carefully scrutinized and the approach should be based on the paradigm of judicial discretion which is founded on objective reasoning and not on individual perception. xiii) The State or a public body or an entity representing a collective cause should be given some acceptable latitude. 16. To the aforesaid principles we may add some more guidelines taking note of the present day scenario. They are: a) An application for condonation of delay should be drafted with careful concern and not in a half hazard manner harbouring the notion that the courts are required to condone delay on the bedrock of the principle that adjudication of a lis on merits is seminal to justice dispensation system. b) An application for condonation of delay should not be dealt with in a routine manner on the base of individual philosophy which is basically subjective. c) Though no precise formula can be laid down regard being had to the concept of judicial discretion, yet a conscious effort for achieving consistency and collegiality of the adjudicatory system should be made as that is the ultimate institutional motto. d) The increasing tendency to perceive delay as a non- serious matter and, hence, lackadaisical propensity can be exhibited in a non- challan manner requires to be curbed, of course, within legal parameters. 9. In the case at hand, the trial Court considered all the aspects pleaded by the petitioner and thereafter dismissed the application. The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the Trial Court committed an error or failed to exercise the jurisdiction judiciously. In the absence of the same, this Court doesn’t find any irregularity in the order passed by the trial Court. This Court also doesn’t find any sufficient reasons assigned by the petitioner to condone the inordinate delay of 973 days in filing the petition to set aside the default order. The Trial Court assigned proper reasons and dismissed the interlocutory application. This Court does not find any merit in the civil revision petition, and the same is liable to be dismissed. 10. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 16.06.2026 TVN 9 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 67 of 2023 Date: 16.06.2026 TVN