t IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1691 OF 2023 Petition under Section 115 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to allow the present civil revision petition and consequently condone the delay of 88 days on the part of the Petitioner herein in preferring an appeal suit before the Principal District Judge, Kurnool against the decree and judgment dated 14.02.2022 in O.S. No. 130 of 2014 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool by setting aside the order dated 01.03.2023 passed in I.A. No. 536 of 2022 in unnumbered Appeal Suit on the file of the Principal District Judge, Kurnool. Between: B.Venu Gopal, S/o.Maheswaraiah, aged 48 years, Hindu, Business, Flat NO.405B, Swarnalok Complex, N.R.Peta, Kurnool ...Petitioner/Defendant No.5 AND 1. Mangali Ramu, aged 33 years, 2. Mangali Sreenivasulu alias Sankar, aged 30 years, Both are sons of Late M.Pullaiah, agriculturists, Hindus, Pasupula Village, Kurnool Mandal, Kurnool District. ...Respondent Nos. 1 & 2/Plaintlffs 4 P 3. T.V.Subbamma, W/o.Late I.V.Ramana, aged 74 years, Hindu, House hold, D.No.43/146, N.R.Peta, Kurnool. 4. P.E.Ashok Goud, S/o.P.E.Anjaneyulu Goud, aged 26 years, Hindu, agriculturist, D.No.2/35, Pasupula village, Kurnool Mandal, Kurnool District. 5. Shaik Razia Bee, W/o. Shaik Moulali, aged 52 years, Muslim, House hold, D.No.4/35, Pasupula Village, Kurnool Mandal, Kurnool District. 6. Bharathi, W/o. Narasimha Reddy, aged 52 years, Hindu, Household, D.NO.51-1026-M2, LIC Colony, Kurnool. ...Respondent Nos. 3 to 6/Defendants 1 to 4 Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. THOKA DEVA DEEPAK ANIRUDH YADAV Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: SRI J. JANAKIRAMI REDDY The Court made the following ORDER: APHC010275602023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1691/2023 Between: B.venu Gopal ...PETITIONER AND Mangali Ramu and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. THOKA DEVA DEEPAK ANIRUDH YADAV Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. J JANAKIRAMI REDDY The Court made the following: 2 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1691 of 2023 ORDER:- This Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the order dated 01.03.2023 in I.A.No.536 of 2022, in unnumbered Appeal Suit passed by the Principal District Judge, Kurnool. 2. Petitioner is defendant No.5 in the suit. The suit O.S.No.130 of 2014 was filed by the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 seeking to declare title and consequential injunction in their favour. The suit schedule property consists of item Nos.1 and 2 i.e. Ac.0.92 cents and Ac.0.28 cents of Pasupula Village, Kurnool Mandal, Kurnool District. The said suit, on contest. was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs over item No.1 of the schedule property and defendant Nos.4 and 5 were restrained from interfering therewith. As regards Item No.2, the suit was dismissed as not pressed against Defendant Nos.2 and 3. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed Appeal Suit before the Principal District Judge, Kurnool. As there was a delay of 88 days in filing the Appeal, an application (I.A.No.536 of 2022) was filed seeking to condone the delay in filing the Appeal. 3. 3 f The said application was dismissed, on contest, by the District Court. Hence, the present revision petition is filed. Heard Sri Thoka Deva Deepak Anirudh Yadav, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri J.Janaki Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the Respondents. The learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that 4. 5. the reason for the delay was that he was declared COVID (+) in January, 2022 and thereafter his mother fell sick and had died in March, 2022. The Petitioner filed a medical certificate issued by M.H.Hospital, Kurnool dated 03.01.2022 and death certificate of his mother to substantiate his plea. 6. Learned counsel for the Respondents contended that the Petitioner had sold the schedule property to third parties and therefore does not have any locus to maintain the Appeal. The further plea of the counsel was that the purchaser of the property from the Petitioner had filed O.S.No.30 of 2024 seeking for perpetual injunction restraining the Respondents/plaintiffs from interfering with the schedule property. It was also contended that the Petitioner had also filed O.S.No.1089 of 2019 for permanent injunction and the Petitioner having filed a separate suit and also got filed suit by the purchaser cannot maintain the Appeal. 4 7. This Court, having considered the rival submissions, is of the opinion that the scope of examination of revision is restricted to the application filed by the Petitioner seeking for condonation of delay. The subsequent sale and suits filed by the Petitioner as well as the subsequent purchaser may not be gone into in this revision. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by L.Rs. & Ors. v. The Special Deputy Collector (LA)^ held that merits of the case cannot be looked into while considering the application for condonation of delay. The relevant paragraph is as under: 26. On a harmonious consideration of the provisions of the law, as aforesaid, and the law laid down by this Court, it is evident that: Law of limitation is based upon public policy that there should be an end to litigation by forfeiting the right to remedy rather than the right itself; (ii) A right or the remedy that has not been exercised availed of for a long time must come to an end or cease to exist after a fixed period of time; The provisions of the Limitation Act have to be construed differently, such as Section 3 has to be construed in a strict sense whereas Section 5 has to be construed liberally; In order to advance substantial justice, though liberal approach, justice-oriented approach or cause of substantialjustice may be kept in mind but the same cannot be used to defeat the substantial law of limitation contained in Section 3 of the Limitation Act; (i) or (iv) Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise ofpower is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even (V) 2024 INSC 286 5 c if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence; Merely some persons obtained relief in similar matter, it does not mean that others are also entitled to the same benefit if the court is not satisfied with the cause shown for the delay in filing the appeal; (vii) condoning the delay; and (viii) parameters laid down for condoning the delay and condoning the delay for the reason that the conditions have been imposed, tantamounts to disregarding the statutory provision. (Vi) Merits of the case are not required to be considered in Delay condonation application has to be decided on the In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to entertain the objections of the counsel for the Respondents. The explanation offered by the Petitioner is supported by the death certificate and the medical certificate issued by the M.H.Hospital,-Kurnool. Further, the delay of 88 days cannot be said to be substantial and a liberal view should be adopted by Courts while condoning such marginal delays. Therefore, the order of the District Appellate Court is set aside and the civil revision petition is allowed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. 8. 9. Sd/- N NAGAMI\/)A ASSISTANT REGISTRAR CffroNToFFICER //TRUE COPY// SE To, 1. The Principal District Judge, Kurnool. (with records if any) 2. The Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool. 3. One CC to Sri. Thoka Deva Deepak Anirudh Yadav, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri. J. Janakirami Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 5. The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 6. Three CD Copies Chp sree HIGH COURT DATED:28/01/2025 ORDER CRP.No.1691 of 2023 Ig t 2 MAR 2C25 mi] . Current Section ALLOWING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION WITHOUT COSTS