IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE I® X lO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1317 OF 2024 Petition under Section 115 of CPC aggrieved by the order dated 15.04.2024 passed in I.A. No. 180 of 2023 in I.A. No. 310 of 2022 in O.S. No.35 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Narsipatnam, Visakhapatnam. Between: Grandhi Pothuraju, S/o. Ramarao, aged 42 years. Business, R/o. D.No.7033, Main Road, Vemulapudi, Narsipatnam Mandal, Anakapalli District. ...Petitioner AND 1. Padmanabhuni Visweswararao, (DIED) 2. Valmiki Sankar, S/o Veerraju, Aged 60 years. Business, R/o. D.No.30- 21, Patha Santabayalu, Narsipatnam Municipality and Mandal, Anakapalli District. 3. Rajana Chinabulli, (DIED) 4. Datia Veera Venkata Papayyaraju, S/o Venkata Jagannadharaju, Aged 72 years. Cultivation, R/o. Vemulapudi, Narsipatnam Mandal, Anakapalli District. 5. Padmanabhuni Sitaram, (DIED) 6. Padmanabhuni Adilakshmi, W/o Visweswararao, Aged 60 years. Housewife, R/o. Vemulapudi, Narsipatnam Mandal, Anakapalli District. 7. Padmanabhuni Ramji, S/o Visweswararao, Aged 41 years. Business, R/o. Vemulapudi, Narsipatnam Mandal, Anakapalli District. 8. Padmanabhuni Nageswararao, S/o Visweswararao, Aged 38 years. Business, R/o. Vemulapudi, Narsipatnam Mandal, Anakapalli District. 9. Padmanabhuni Santosh Kumar, S/o Visweswararao, Aged 35 years, Business, R/o. Vemulapudi, Narsipatnam Mandal, Anakapalli District. 10. Padmanabhuni Jogarao, S/o Sitaram, Aged 45 years, Business, R/o. Vemulapudi, Narsipatnam Mandal, Anakapalli District. 11. Padmanabhuni Seetaratnam, W/o Sitaram, Aged 60 years. Housewife, R/o. Vemulapudi, Narsipatnam Mandal, Anakapalli District 12. Tatikonda Jogaratnam, W/o Eswararao, Aged 45 years. Housewife, R/o. Kinthali, Ravikamtham Mandal, Anakapalli District. 13. Tatikonda Lakshmi, W/o Eswararao, Aged 43 years. Housewife, R/o. Kinthali, Ravikamtham Mandal, Anakapalli District. (D.6 to D. 13 are the legal heirs of Defendants 1 and 2.) ...Respondents/ Respondents-Defendants lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 to Suspend the order dated 15.04.2024 passed in I.A.No.180 of 2023 in I.A. No.310/2022 in O.S. No.35/2014, dated 15.04.2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Narsipatnam. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI RAMESH BABU NELATURI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.6,7 & 9:SRI SHAIK MOHAMMED ISMAIL The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010255092024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1317/2024 Between: Grandhi Pothuraju ...PETITIONER AND Padmanabhuni Visweswararao (died) and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.RAMESH BABU NELATURI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. 2.SHAIK MOHAMMED ISMAIL The Court made the following: 2 BSB, J ' C.R.P.No.l317of2024 ORDER: This revision under Section 115 CPC is filed dated 15.04.2024, dismissing I.A.No.180 of 2023 i in O.S.No.35 of 2014 against the order, in I.A.No.310 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Narsrpatnam, filed by the plaintiff under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone delay of 116 days in filing petition in the above suit. to restore I.A.No.309 of 2022 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents No.6, 7 & 9. The respondent Nos.1 5 died. Notice sent to the , 3 and No.2 was returned un-served as addressee cannot be located', notices sent to the respondents 8 and 11 were returned . 10 un-served as 'addressee left without instructions' and notices sent to respondents 12 and 13 were returned un-served as refused. Before the trial Court therefore, further notices to dispensed with. the respondents remained respondents No.2, 8, 10 and 11 ex parte and were 3. The facts, briefly stated, are as follows: The plaintiff filed the suit for absolute right, title consequential relief of a declaration that the plaintiff has got over the suit schedule property and for a recovery of possession of the suit schedule suit, the defendant died, the suit was dismissed property. During the pendency of the failure to take steps within time On as abated, a petition to restore the suit by setting Pending the said petition, the 3'’'^ representatives on record, was also dismissed for default, on 17.11.2022, he could not pay the Subsequently, the plaintiff filed aside the abatement of suit. respondent died. To bring his legal I.A.No.309 of 2022 was filed. The same It is the case of the petitioner that BSB,J C.R.P.No.1317 of 2024 process for service of notices to the proposed LRs as he fell sick due to viral fever and could not meet his counsel. As process was not paid, the trial Court dismissed the petition holding that in spite of giving sufficient time and posting the matter on condition, process had not been paid and it had shown that the petitioner was not interested in pursuing the matter. There are no laches or negligence on his part. Hence, the present petition in I.A.No.180 of 2023 was filed to condone delay of 116 days in filing the petition to restore i.A.No.309 of 2022. 4. The respondents remained ex parte. 5. The trial Court, by the impugned order, dismissed the petition observing as follows; “No doubt in an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, there is no straight jacket formula prescribed to explain But, there should be the delay of each and every day. justifiable material so as to enable this Court to apply the relief sought in a reasonable manner through a pragmatic approach by applying practical methods in a liberal manner. On careful consideration of the case record, it appears that the petitioner is not duly diligent over the court proceedings and there is no justification provided by him to support his pleadings to condone the inordinate delay of 116 days. The petitioner failed to submit specific reasons and provide sufficient cause with details and also failed to submit any proof to enable this Court to accept his plea to condone the delay. In these circumstances, there are no justified reasons to condone the inordinate delay of 116 days. In these circumstances as there material placed by the petitioner so as to enable this IS no 4 % BSB,J C.R.P.No.l317of 2024 Court that there was a sufficient cause for the delay in submitting the application and invoking substantive right by filing this present application. In the above said circumstances and reasons specified as there are no bona tides deliberating inaction of his absence, the plea of the petitioner is not sustainable and hence, the said plea is rejected.” It is well settled principle that the expression ‘sufficient cause’ under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice and what constitutes sufficient cause always depends on the facts and circumstances of a particular case. Hence, the application need not be rejected merely on the ground of long delay, but the test shall be whether sufficient cause is made out for the delay. 6. 7. In the present case, the suit is of the year 2014. Issues were framed on 28.01.2019 and the matter was coming up for trial and at the time of cross-examination of PW1, the 1®‘ defendant died on 06.03.2021. Thereafter, the trial Court ordered for steps on 21.09.2021. In spite of granting several adjournments, the petitioner failed to take steps and as such, the suit was dismissed against the 1®‘ defendant as abated. Later, the 3^^ defendant also died. Thereafter, the 5 defendant died on 07.02.2020 and the suit against defendant No.5 was abated. Thus, at every stage, the plaintiff failed to pay the process and did not pursue the matter diligently. The petitioner failed to produce any material to substantiate his plea in support of his ill health. Thus, as rightly held by the trial Court, the petitioner could not establish ‘sufficient cause’ to condone the delay. th 5 .0 BSB, J C.R.P.No.1317 of 2024 Therefore, this Court does not see any reason to interfere with the order impugned. 8. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 9. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- KJ. RAJA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR pr %r ll //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Senior Civil Judge, Narsipatnam, Visakhapatnam(with records if any) 2. One CQto Sri Ramesh Babu Nelaturi, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Sha'ik Mohammed Ismail, Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court of A.P. at Amaravati. 5. Three CD Copies. ssb HIGH COURT DATED:04/03/2025 Of X 18 MAK 2025 ORDER rT> to. <5. ^ ^ . Curreni oecuon %£^ffSPATC\'^-^ CRP.No.1317 of 2024 DISMISSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION WITHOUT COSTS