APHC010447722024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] WEDNESDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI I.A.NO.1 OF 2024 IN / AND CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2465/2024 Between: 1. PANCHIREDDY RAMANAMURTHY, S/O LATE YERRAYYA AGE 38 YRS, R/O D NO. 3-32, MAMIDIVALASA VILAGE SRIKAKULAM MANDAL AND DISTRICT. 2. PANCHIREDDY YERRAYYA, S/O GANGAYYA AGE 58 YRS, 3-32, MAMIDIVALASA VILAGE, SRIKAKULAM MANDAL AND DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. PAIDI CHANDRARAO, S/o Late Latchannaa Age 41 yrs, R/o D No. 4051, Kusalapuram Village Etcherla Mandal, Srikakulam District ...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 toAggrieved by the orders dt. 16.12.2022 passed in E.P.No. 68 of 2020 in O.S.No. 146 of 2017 on the file of court of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Srikakulam IA 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 condone the delay of 560 days in presenting the revision against orders dt. Page 2 of 7 SRS,J C.R.P.No.2465 of 2024 16.12.2022 passed in E.P. No. 68 /2020 in O.S. No. 146/2017 on the file of the court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam pending disposal of the Civil Revision Petition and to pass IA NO: 2 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 operation of orders dt. 16.12.2022 in E. P. No. 68 12020 in O.S. No. 146/2017 on the file of the court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam pending disposal of the CRP. Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. GRANDHI PRIYANKA Counsel for the Respondent: 1. The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER I.A.No.1 of 2024 is filed to condone the delay of 560 days in filing the present Civil Revision Petition. 2. The judgment debtors filed the above revision, against the order dated 16.12.2022 passed in E.P.No.68 of 2020 in O.S.No.146 of 2017 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam. 3. The respondent/decree holder filed the suit O.S.No.146 of 2017 on the file of learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, for recovery of the amount against the petitioners/judgment debtors. By judgment and decree dated 20.02.2020, the said suit was decreed with costs, on contest, directing the petitioners/judgment debtors to pay to the plaintiff the suit amount of Rs.3,70,400/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Seventy Thousand and Four Hundred only) together with subsequent interest at 24% per annum from the date of SRS,J C.R.P.No.2465 of 2024 suit till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only). 4. Since the petitioners failed to pay the decretal amount, the respondent/decree holder filed E.P. under Order XXI Rules 37 and 38 of CPC, to commit the judgment debtors to civil prison if they fail to pay the E.P. amount together with subsequent interest and costs. 5. The decree holder examined himself as PW1 and got marked Exs.P1 and P3. Judgment debtor No.1 was examined as RW1. However, no documents were marked. 6. The Executing Court recorded a finding that the judgment debtors, having means, failed to satisfy the decree and hence, allowed the E.P. by order dated 16.12.2022. 7. Aggrieved by the order dated 16.12.2022, the present revision is filed with a delay of 560 days. 8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 9. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, judgment debtor No.1 deposed to the affidavit. It was contended, inter alia, that the son of the judgment debtor No.1 was suffering from gastric issues and he is the sole breadwinner. After securing a small amount for legal expenses, an application for a certified copy was made on 17.09.2024 and the copy was made ready on 19.09.2024. Thereafter the above revision is filed with delay. 10. While considering the application for condonation of delay, the Court has to see whether the delay is inordinate or the delay is a few days and that the reasons assigned are valid and cogent. The party seeking condonation of delay must explain the reasons to condone the delay properly. The length of delay is no matter and the acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Page 4 of 7 SRS,J C.R.P.No.2465 of 2024 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy1, considered the entire case law on the aspect and summed up the following guidelines regarding condonation of delay: 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 1 (2013) 12 SCC 649 SRS,J C.R.P.No.2465 of 2024 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. 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 SRS,J C.R.P.No.2465 of 2024 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. 12. In the case at hand, as narrated supra, the revision was filed with a delay of 560 days. The affidavit filed in support of the petition to condone delay does not indicate valid reasons. Unless, sufficient cause is shown, in case of inordinate delay, condoning the delay does not arise. 13. Though valid reasons are not assigned to condone the delay, considering the fact situation, this Court, by order dated 20.11.2024, granted a stay of all further proceedings, including the arrest of the petitioners, subject to the condition of the petitioners’ depositing half of the decretal amount. A default clause was also incorporated in the order. The judgment debtors failed to deposit the amount. Hence, the default clause worked out. 14. Since no valid grounds are explained to condone delay, I.A.No.1 of 2024 is dismissed. 15. Consequently, 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 : 08.01.2025 Ikn SRS,J C.R.P.No.2465 of 2024 360 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI I.A.NO.1 OF 2024 IN / AND CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2465/2024 Date : 08.01.2025 Ikn