APHC010413882021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR I.A.NO.1 OF 2021 AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 549/2021 Between: 1. THE DEPOT MANAGER, APSRTC, ANAKAPALLI DEPOT, ANAKAPALLI. 2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, APSRTC, DWARAKANAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. KETHA KANNALAMMA KALYANI, W/O LATE RAJESH, HINDU, ST, AGED 25 YEARS, R /O MANGHALA GADABUR VILLAGE, CHEEDIKADA MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 2. KORUKONDA RAMANA, S/O CHINA RAMU NAIDU, HINDU, AGED MAJOR, R/O MAMIDIPALEM VILLAGE, ANAKAPALLI MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. (THE DRIVER OF THE APSRTC BUS BEARING NO.AP11Z-0706 ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying that the High Court may be pleased to being aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 12.04.2019 passed in M.O.P No. 398 of 2016 on the file of Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal Cum IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam. IA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 833 days in filing the present appeal as against order and decree dated 12.04.2019 in MOP No. 398 of 2016 on the file of the learned Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal —Cum- IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam and to pass IA NO: 2 OF 2021 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 grant stay of operation of order and decree dated 12.04.2019 in MOP No. 398 of 2016 on the file of the learned Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal -Cum- IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam and to pass Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. SOLOMON RAJU MANCHALAFOR (APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. KASI SOMAYAJULA JAYASHREE The Court made the following: 3 JUDGMENT:- 1. The present appeal is filed aggrieved by order dated 12.04.2019 passed in M.V.O.P.No.398 of 2016 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, along with an application vide I.A.No.1 of 2021, seeking to condone the delay of 833 days. 2. For proper appreciation of the case of the appellant, the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the present application are as follows: “I submit that after disposal of the claim petition filed by respondent No.1, our counsel informed about the result of the claim petition. We sought legal opinion of our counsel as we have a good case. The counsel in the Court below gave his opinion by September, 2019. Our Management took some time to grant approval. Thus there was a delay and in the meantime, there was country wide lock down on account of Covid-19. Thus there is delay in filing the appeal. Thus the present appeal is filed.” 3. During the course of hearing, the counsel for the appellant submits that the appeal could not be filed in time in view of the administrative contingencies as stated in Para-5 of the affidavit filed in support of the present application. The impugned order was passed on 12.04.2019, by the Tribunal and the copy 4 application was filed on 24.09.2021, to obtain certified copy of the same to enable the appellant to file the present appeal. On perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the delay application, except stating that a legal opinion is sought from the counsel for the appellant in the month of 2019 and thereafter, the management of the appellant took some time to grant approval for filing the present appeal, nothing is stated explaining the delay as to why the copy application for obtaining the certified copy was not filed in time. It is needless to mention that period of limitation for filing the appeal is 90 days and the appeal ought to have been filed before the said period is exhausted. However, as already noted supra, absolutely no explanation is forthcoming from the affidavit filed in support of the application seeking to condone the delay in filing the present appeal and appellant miserably failed to explain the same. 4. The Hon’ble Apex Court, while dealing with the aspect of condoning delay in the case of “Post Master General and Others Vs. Living Media India Limited and another 1” as observed as follows:- 1 (2012) 3 Supreme Court Cases 563 5 “27. It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with Court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us. 28. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making severalnotes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody, including the Government. 29. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bona fide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. 30. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay.” 6 5. In the case of “Pathapati Subba Reddy and Others v. Special Deputy Collector and Others2” the Hon’ble Apex Court at para 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 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.” 2 2024 SCC OnLine SC 513 7 6. In State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ramkumar Choudhary 3 , 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 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 cause for not filing the appeal earlier, the sufficient cause must establish that because of some event or 3 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3612 8 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).” 7. In Thirunagalingam Vs. Lingeswaran and another4, 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 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.” 8. Further, the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the delay application are vague and bereft of particulars. In the absence of any explanation, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretionary power to condone the inordinate delay of 833 days in preferring the present appeal. In 4 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1093 9 view of the above referred judgments, the appellant miserably failed to make out a case warranting the interference of this Court for condoning the inordinate delay. 9. In view of the above, there are no merits in the present application to condone the inordinate delay of 833 days in preferring the present appeal and accordingly IA No.1 of 2021 is dismissed. Consequently, the M.A.C.M.A. No.549 of 2021 is also dismissed. There shall be no orders as to costs. As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR Dt.30.10.2025 SR