APHC010655442022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] WEDNESDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 511/2022 Between: 1. APSRTC LTD, REP. BY IT'S CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD, PRESENTLY AT RTC HOUSE, PNBS VIJAYAWADA ...APPELLANT AND 1. KUKKA SATYANARAYANA, S/O. LATE VENKANNA AGED 58 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.1, TATIYAKULAPALEM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT 2. KUKKA VEERRAJU, S/O. SATYANARAYANA AGED 38 YEORS, RIO. D.NO.1, TATIYAKULAPALEM, THONDANGI TANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DSITRCIT. 3. KUKKA LOVARAJU, S/O. SATYANARAYANA AGED 36 YEFRS, R/O. D.NO.1, TATIYAKULAPALEM, THONDANGI HLANDAL , EAST GODAVARI DSITRCIT. 4. NEMALA LAKSHMI, W/O. DEVUDU, AGED 32 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.1, TATIYAKULAPALEM, THONDANGI MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DSITRCIT. 5. KADARI RAMZIYAMMA, W/O. VENKATA RAO, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O.D.N0.1, TATIYAKULAPALEM, THONDANGI HANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DSITRCIT. 6. MEKALA SATILBABU, S/O. GANGARAJU DRIVER, AGED 35 YEARS, R/O. YEDURUPALLI VILLAGE, NATHAVARAM 2 CGR, J I.A.No.1 of 2022 IN/AND MACMA No.511 of 2022 MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. (RESPONDENT NO.6 IS NOT NECESSARY PARTY ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased topleased to set aside Decree and Award dated 11.09.2017 passed in M.V.O.P No. 119 of 2014 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Cum XII Additional District Judge, East Godavari Pithapuram and consequently dismiss the claim Petition and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 pleased to condone the delay of 1788days in filing the appeal against M.V.O.P No. 119 of 2014, dated 11.09.2017 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Cum- Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Cum XII Additional District Judge, East Godavari, Pithapuram and to pass IA NO: 2 OF 2022 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 pleased to grant stay of operation of Decree and Award dated 11.09.2017 passed in M.V.O.P No. 119 of 2014 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Cum XII Additional District Judge, East Godavari, Pithapuram and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. VINOD KUMAR TARLADA (SC FOR APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: 3 CGR, J I.A.No.1 of 2022 IN/AND MACMA No.511 of 2022 I.A.No.1 of 2022 IN/AND MACMA No.511 of 2022 COMMON JUDGMENT: Notice taken out on respondent Nos. 3 and 4 served; however, none appeared. Notice sent to respondent Nos. 1, 2, and 5 returned un-served with endorsement that the addressee was deceased. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant/APSRTC took time on 12.09.2023 and 17.10.2023 to take steps to implead the legal representatives of the deceased respondent Nos. 1, 2, and 5. However, no such application has been filed. Respondent Nos. 1, 2, and 5 are none other than the husband, son, and mother of the deceased, respectively. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are the remaining son and daughter of the deceased. Therefore, technically, the deceased respondents are already represented by respondent Nos. 3 and 4. 3. I.A. No. 1 of 2022 is an application filed seeking to condone the delay of 1788 days in filing the present appeal. The reasons stated for the delay are as follows: 4 CGR, J I.A.No.1 of 2022 IN/AND MACMA No.511 of 2022 “The award was pronounced on 11.09.2017; the appellant applied for certified copies on 13.09.2017, which were made ready on 10.10.2017. Thereafter, legal opinion was sought from the panel advocate, who, being ill, took some time to provide the opinion, which was received around mid-June 2018. Subsequently, administrative approvals were sought from the management. Due to bifurcation of the corporation, files were misplaced and could only be retrieved through the panel advocate in March 2019. Later, the management approved preferring the appeal in June 2019. Thereafter, there was a change of standing counsel for the corporation, and the file was handed over to the earlier counsel, causing further delay. The counsel could not file the appeal within time, and the Covid-19 outbreak from March 2020 further delayed the filing. India declared a lockdown from 24.03.2020. Thus, the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed limitation period. It is submitted that the delay was neither willful nor wanton. If the delay is not condoned, the appellant will suffer irreparable loss and injustice.” 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/APSRTC reiterated the aforesaid reasons and sought this Court's indulgence to condone the delay in filing the present appeal. None appeared for the respondents. 5. The order impugned in this appeal was passed in MVOP No.119 of 2014 by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – 5 CGR, J I.A.No.1 of 2022 IN/AND MACMA No.511 of 2022 cum – XII Additional District Judge, East Godavari, Pithapuram. Admittedly, the appellant/APSRTC received a copy of the order on 10.10.2017. The limitation period for filing the appeal is 90 days, and therefore the appeal ought to have been filed before 10.01.2018. It is stated that legal opinion was sought and received around June 2018; the appellant/APSRTC could have filed the appeal then as well. It is further stated that due to bifurcation of the corporation, files were misplaced and retrieved only in March 2019, yet the appeal was not filed thereafter. The management approved filing the appeal in June 2019, but the appeal was filed only on 30.11.2022. No explanation has been provided for the further delay from June 2019 to November 2022. It is stated that the Covid-19 outbreak from March 2020 prevented filing the appeal. However, there is no explanation for the period from June 2019 to March 2020. Thus, there is an inordinate delay of 1788 days in filing the present appeal. The reasons and cause stated do not inspire confidence as to the bonafides of the appellant in initiating the present proceedings. The reasons given do not constitute sufficient cause for this Court to exercise discretion in condoning such inordinate delay. 6. The Hon’ble Apex Court, while dealing with the aspect of condoning delay, recently in the judgment of Pathapati Subba 6 CGR, J I.A.No.1 of 2022 IN/AND MACMA No.511 of 2022 Reddy and Others v. Special Deputy Collector and Others1 held as follows at paragraph No. 26: “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: (i) 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 or availed of for a long time must come to an end or cease to exist after a fixed period of time; (iii) 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; (iv) In order to advance substantial justice, though liberal approach, justice-oriented approach or cause of substantial justice 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; (v) Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where 1 2024 SCC OnLine SC 513 7 CGR, J I.A.No.1 of 2022 IN/AND MACMA No.511 of 2022 there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence; (vi) 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) Merits of the case are not required to be considered in condoning the delay; and (viii) Delay condonation application has to be decided on the 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.” 7. In State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. In State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ramkumar Choudhary2, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows at paragraph Nos. 6 and 7: “6. At the same time, we cannot simply brush aside the delay occurred in preferring the second appeal, due to callous and lackadaisical attitude on the part of the officials functioning in the State machinery. Though the Government adopts systematic approach in handling the legal issues and preferring the petitions/applications/appeals well within the time, due to the fault on the part of the officials in merely communicating the information on time, huge revenue loss will be caused to the Government exchequer. The present case is one such case, wherein, enormous 2 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3612 8 CGR, J I.A.No.1 of 2022 IN/AND MACMA No.511 of 2022 delay of 1788 days occasioned in preferring the second appeal due to the lapses on the part of the officials functioning under the State, though valuable Government lands were involved. Therefore, we direct the State to streamline the machinery touching the legal issues, offering legal opinion, filing of cases before the Tribunal/Courts, etc., fix the responsibility on the officer(s) concerned, and penalize the officer(s), who is/are responsible for delay, deviation, lapses, etc., if any, to the value of the loss caused to the Government. Such direction will have to be followed by all the States scrupulously. 7. There is one another aspect of the matter which we must not ignore or overlook. Over a period of time, we have noticed that whenever there is a plea for condonation of delay be it at the instance of a private litigant or State the delay is sought to be explained right from the time, the limitation starts and if there is a delay of say 2 years or 3 years or 4 years till the end of the same. For example if the period of limitation is 90 days then the party seeking condonation has to explain why it was unable to institute the proceedings within that period of limitation. What events occurred after the 91st day till the last is of no consequence. The court is required to consider what came in the way of the party that it was unable to file it between the 1st day and the 90th day. It is true that a party is entitled to wait until the last day of limitation for filing an appeal. But when it allows the limitation to expire and pleads sufficient 9 CGR, J I.A.No.1 of 2022 IN/AND MACMA No.511 of 2022 cause for not filing the appeal earlier, the sufficient cause must establish that because of some event or circumstance arising before the limitation expired it was not possible to file the appeal within time. No event or circumstance arising after the expiry of limitation can constitute such sufficient cause. There may be events or circumstances subsequent to the expiry of limitation which may further delay the filing of the appeal. But that the limitation has been allowed to expire without the appeal being filed must be traced to a cause arising within the period of limitation. (See: Ajit Singh Thakur Singh v. State of Gujarat, (1981) 1 SCC 495: AIR 1981 SC 733).” 8. In Thirunagalingam Vs. Lingeswaran and another 3, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows at paragraph Nos.31 and 32: “31. It is a well-stated law that while considering the plea for condonation of delay, the first and foremost duty of the court is to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation rather than starting with the merits of the main matter. Only when sufficient cause or reasons given for the delay by the litigant and the opposition of the other side is equally balanced or stand on equal footing, the court may consider the merits of the main matter for the purpose of condoning the delay. 32. Further, this Court has repeatedly emphasized in several cases that delay should not be condoned 3 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1093 10 CGR, J I.A.No.1 of 2022 IN/AND MACMA No.511 of 2022 merely as an act of generosity. The pursuit of substantial justice must not come at the cost of causing prejudice to the opposing party. In the present case, the respondents/defendants have failed to demonstrate reasonable grounds of delay in pursuing the matter, and this crucial requirement for condoning the delay remains unmet.” 9. In light of the above legal principles, the facts of the present case do not warrant condonation of delay. The explanation provided is insufficient to invoke the Court’s discretion in favor of condonation. 10. Accordingly, there is no merit in this application, and I.A. No. 1 of 2022 is dismissed. Consequently, MACMA No. 511 of 2022 is also dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN 30th July, 2025 cbn 11 CGR, J I.A.No.1 of 2022 IN/AND MACMA No.511 of 2022 148 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN I.A.No.1 of 2022 IN/AND MACMA No.511 of 2022 30th July, 2025 cbn