1 VS,J C.R.P.Nos.1371 and 1666 of 2024 APHC010279682024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THURSDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1371/2024 Between: 1. KHANDAVILLI SESHAGIRI RAO, S/O KRISHNA MURTHY HINDU, AGED 40 YEARS, RESIDENT OF CHODAVARAM VILLAGE, RAMACHANDRAPURAM MANDAL RAMACHANDRAPURAM EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. TADI JAGANMOHANA REDDY, S/o Pedaperreddy, Hindu, aged 45 years. Resident of D No 3-83, Pasalpudi village Rayavaram mandal. East Godavari 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 order Dt. 10th July, 2019 passed in I.A.No. 169 of 2019 in O.S. No 229 of 2016 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram 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 pleased to condone the delay of 1728 days in preferring this revision petition and to pass IA NO: 2 OF 2024 2 VS,J C.R.P.Nos.1371 and 1666 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 pleased to dispense filing certified copies in O.S. No 229 of 2016 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram, pending the revision petition and to pass IA NO: 3 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 pleased to stay of all further proceedings in O.S. No 229 of 2016 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram, pending the revision petition and to pass IA NO: 4 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 pleased to receive the medical reports/discharge summary pertaining to my surgery for removal of clots in brain and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. I BALA SUBRAHMANYAM Counsel for the Respondent: 1. TATAVARTHI S.S.S.N.CHALAPATHI KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1666/2024 Between: 1. KHANDAVILLI SESHAGIRI RAO, S/O KRISHNA MURTHY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/B. D. NO. 1-120/1, CHODAVARAM VILLAGE, RAMACHANDRAPURAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. TADI JAGANMOHANA REDDY, S/o Pedaper Reddy, Hindu, aged about 57 years. Resident of D No 8-83, Pasalpudi Village Rayavaram Mandal, East Godavari District 3 VS,J C.R.P.Nos.1371 and 1666 of 2024 ...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 tobeen aggrieved by the docket order 01.07.2024 passed in E.A. SR. No. 4314 of 2024 in un-numbered E.A. No. /2024 in E.P. No. 57 of 2018 in O.S. No. 299 of 2016 on the file of Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Ramachandrapuram, this revision petition is filed on the following among other grounds without prejudice to one another 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 pleased to dispense with Xerox Copy of the order 01.07.2024 passed in E.A. SR. No. 4314 of 2024 in un-numbered E.A. No. /2024 in E.P. No. 57 of 2018 in O.S. No. 299 of 2016 on the file of Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Ramachandrapuram,in filing the above CRP otherwise the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss and hardship and 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 pleased to stay of all further proceedings in EP NO 57 OF 2018 IN O.S. No 229 of 2016 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram, pending the revision petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. I BALA SUBRAHMANYAM Counsel for the Respondent: 1. TATAVARTHI S.S.S.N.CHALAPATHI KUMAR The Court made the following: 4 VS,J C.R.P.Nos.1371 and 1666 of 2024 COMMON ORDER: These Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, by the same petitioner/defendant. As such, it is appropriate to dispose of both these revision petitions by way of a common order. 2. C.R.P.No.1371 of 2024 came to be filed against by the order dated 10.07.2019 in I.A.No.169 of 2019 in O.S.No.229 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram whereby the Court below allowed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay of 596 days in filing a petition under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, however by imposing costs of Rs.25,825/-. As the petitioner did not deposit the said amount due to the reasons mentioned in the affidavit, this Civil Revision Petition is filed. 3. C.R.P.No.1666 of 2024 came to be filed aggrieved by the order dated 01.07.2024 passed in E.A.SR.No.4314 of 2024 in un-numbered E.A.No.___/2024 in E.P.No.57 of 2018 in O.S.No.229 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram, whereby the Court below dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Order XXI Rule 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure to stay the execution proceedings for a period of one (1) month. 4. Brief facts of the case are as under: (a) The respondent/plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit against the petitioner/defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.13,15,800/-, wherein, the petitioner/defendant was set exparte and the Court below passed a judgment on 30.09.2016 decreeing the suit in favour of the respondent/plaintiff and directed the petitioner/defendant to pay Rs.13,15,800/- with subsequent interest on the principal amount of Rs.9,00,000/- at 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% per annum till realization. The case of the petitioner/defendant is that though the suit 5 VS,J C.R.P.Nos.1371 and 1666 of 2024 summons were not served on him, the Court below believed the same were served on him and set him exparte. The petitioner/defendant came to know about the exparte decree subsequent to receiving notice in the execution proceedings. As such, the petitioner/defendant was constrained to file I.A.No.169 of 2019 in O.S.No.229 of 2016 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act with a prayer to condone delay of 596 days in filing the petition under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The said application was allowed by the Court below on 10.07.2019 on a condition that the petitioner/defendant shall deposit the suit costs of Rs.25,825/- by 05.08.2019. The petitioner filed C.R.P.No.1371 of 2024 on the ground that he was hospitalized due to brain hemorrhage and underwent a major surgery to the brain and could not pay the costs imposed within the time stipulated by the Court below. (b) After disposal of the subject suit, the respondent/plaintiff filed E.P.No.57 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram for execution of the decree dated 30.09.2016. In the said execution proceedings, the petitioner filed an execution application vide E.A.SR.No.4314 of 2024 under Order XXI Rule 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure with a plea to stay the execution proceedings for a period of one month. The said application filed by the petitioner/defendant was dismissed by the Court below vide docket order dated 01.07.2024, which is challenged in C.R.P.No.1666 of 2024. 5. Heard Innamuri Balasubramanyam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. T.S.S.S.N. Chalapathi Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent. 6. Admittedly, the respondent/plaintiff filed the subject suit on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram for recovery of an amount of Rs.13,15,800/-, the trial Court, decreed the suit in favour of the respondent/plaintiff by setting the petitioner/defendant as exparte. Thereafter, the respondent/plaintiff filed execution petition before the Court below for 6 VS,J C.R.P.Nos.1371 and 1666 of 2024 execution of the decree. The case of the petitioner is that it is only when a notice informing about the execution proceedings was served on him, he came to know about the suit, as such, he filed two applications i.e. I.A.No.169 of 2019 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act with a prayer to condone delay of 596 days in filing the petition under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure and E.A.SR.No.4314 of 2024 under Order XXI Rule 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure with a plea to stay the execution proceedings for a period of one month. 7. 7. Undisputedly, the trial Court has allowed the application filed by the petitioner/defendant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act however by directing the petitioner/defendant to deposit the suit costs to an amount of Rs.25,825/- by 05.08.2019, failing which the petition would stand dismissed. It is the case of the petitioner/defendant that he underwent major surgery to his brain and hence, he could not either pay the costs imposed by the Court or could approach the trial Court seeking extension of the said time period. 8. For better appreciation of the case, Section 5 of the Limitation Act is extracted hereunder: “5. Extension of prescribed period in certain cases.—Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period.” 9. Time and again, this Court and as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the language employed in Section 5 of the Limitation Act makes it clear that the legislature had advisedly, left the term “sufficient cause” undefined and unillustrated for what is sufficient cause in one case may not be so in another case. Thus, the term is kept elastic and unfettered discretion has been conferred on the courts, to do substantial justices considering facts and 7 VS,J C.R.P.Nos.1371 and 1666 of 2024 circumstances of each case. Though no hard and fast rule can be laid regarding condonation of delay, the superior courts and Supreme Court have issued certain guidelines from time to time, as to how the discretion has to be exercised. The sum and substance of the guidelines is that the discretion has to be exercised judicially and the approach of the court should be liberal and pragmatic but not pedantic. The guiding principle is that justice should not be sacrificed on the alter of technicalities. But, at the same time, courts should not lose sight of the statutory requirement of “sufficient cause” and condone delay on equitable grounds. Power to condone delay is discretionary though it has to be liberally construed. The expression “sufficient cause” in Section 5 of the Limitation Act is adequately elastic to enable courts to apply law in a meaningful manner to subserve ends of justice. Therefore, it is imperative duty of the court to decide whether cause shown by the petitioner is sufficient cause i.e. a cause which prevented the petitioner from approaching the court within the time prescribed under the Limitation Act, as it is a condition set for the court to exercise discretion in the matter of condoning delay. 10. In the case on hand, the petitioner/defendant has shown the cause which prevented him from approaching the Court below within the time prescribed under the Limitation Act, as such, the Court below, taking a liberal value has allowed the application (I.A.No.169 of 2019 in O.S.No.229 of 2016) filed by the petitioner/defendant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act by directing him to deposit the suit costs of Rs.25,825/-, which he failed to do so as he underwent a major surgery to his brain and was constrained to bed for a long period. In such a case, the petitioner/defendant, instead of filing a revision petition, ought to have approached the Court below by way of an appropriate application seeking to extend the time period for depositing the costs imposed. As such, C.R.P.No.1371 of 2024 is liable to be disposed of. 11. Accordingly, C.R.P.No.1371 of 2024 is disposed of by directing the petitioner/defendant to approach the Court below by way of filing an 8 VS,J C.R.P.Nos.1371 and 1666 of 2024 appropriate application seeking extension of time for depositing the costs imposed on him on 10.07.2019 in I.A.No.169 of 2019 in O.S.No.229 of 2016 within a period of one (1) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and upon receiving such application, the Court below shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 12. In view of the direction issued in C.R.P.No.1371 of 2024, C.R.P.No.1666 of 2024 is allowed and there shall be stay of all further proceedings in E.P.No.57 of 2018 including execution of the decree and judgment in O.S.No.229 of 2016, till the disposal of the application to be filed by the petitioner/defendant seeking extension of time for depositing the costs imposed on him on 10.07.2019 in I.A.No.169 of 2019 in O.S.No.229 of 2016. 13. Accordingly, C.R.P.No.1371 of 2024 is disposed of and C.R.P.No.1666 of 2024 is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date:30.10.2025 Gss