APHC010511842023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2685/2023 Between: 1. T.CHINNA LAKSHMI REDDY, (DIED) BY HIS LRS, AGED 61 YEARS, HINDU, AGRICULTURIST. 2. T. LAKSHMI KANTHA REDDY, , AGED 59 YEARS, CONTRACTOR. 3. T. KANTHAMMA, W/O. LATE. T. CHINNA LAKSHMI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS. 4. T. GOVARDHAN REDDY, S/O. LATE. T. CHINNA LAKSHMI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, PRIVATE EMPLOYEE. 5. T. NAGESWARA REDDY, S/O. LATE T. CHINNA LAKSHMI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS. ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF ORVAKAL VILLAGE, KURNOOL DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THOTA AYYAPU REDDY, S/O. T.PEDDA NAROJI REDDY, AGED 61 YEARS, HINDU, AGRICULTURIST, R/O. ORVUKAL VILLAGE, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 2. THOTA RAMACHANDRA REDDY, S/O. T. PEDDA NAROJI REDDY, AGED 59 YEARS, HINDU, AGRICULTURIST, R/O. ORVAKAL VILLAGE AND MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. (DIED AND REP. BY HIS LRS. R6 AND R7) 3. DANDANNA GARI NAGANNA, S/O. SUBBAMMA, AGED 38 YEARS,CULTIVATOR, R/O. PUDICHERLA VILLAGE, ORVAKAL MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 2 VS,J C.R.P.No.2685 of 2023 4. BOYA SESHANNA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O. PUDICHERLA VILLAGE, ORVAKAL MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 5. BOYA SIVANNA, , AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O. PUDICHERLA VILLAGE, ORVAKAL MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 6. T SREEDHAR REDDY, S/O. LATE THOTA RAMA CHANDRA REDDY, WORKING AS MANAGER, SKNANDA INFRA PROJECTS, KURNOOL, R/O. ORVAKAL VILLAGE AND MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT 7. T MURALIDHAR REDDY, S/O. LATE THOTA RAMA CHANDRA REDDY, WORKING AS SOFTWARE ENGINEER, R/O. ORVAKAL VILLAGE AND MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT (NOTE- DOOR NUMBER OF THE RESIDENCES OF THE RESPONDENTS HEREIN WERE NOT MENTIONED IN THE LOWER COURT AS WELL. HOWEVER, THE PETITIONERS HEREIN UNDERTAKE TO SERVE THE NOTICES AS THE RESPONDENTS ARE IDENTIFIED WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE SURNAMES IN THE THEIR VILLAGES.) ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 to allow the present civil revision petition and consequently set aside the Order dated 14.08.2023 passed in IA. No. 523 of 2022 in A.S. No. 15 of 2045 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Kurnool. and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 all the further proceedings in A.S. No.15 of 2014 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Kurnool, pending disposal of the above C.R.P and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1 . VARUN BYREDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SREEKANTH REDDY AMBATI 2. J JANAKIRAMI REDDY 3. The Court made the following: 3 VS,J C.R.P.No.2685 of 2023 ORDER: The petitioners filed the present Civil Revision Petition aggrieved by the order dated 14.08.2023 passed in I.A.No.523 of 2022 in A.S.No.15 of 2014 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Kurnool. 2. The petitioners, who are the appellants/plaintiffs, filed A.S.No.15 of 2014 against the decree and judgment dated 31.12.2013 passed in O.S.No.394/2009 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Magistrate, Kurnool. The said appeal was dismissed for default against the 2nd respondent on 17.06.2016. Subsequently, the petitioners/appellants filed I.A.No.523 of 2022 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking to condone the delay of 1646 days in filing a petition to set aside the said dismissal for default order. 3. The said application was dismissed by the trial Judge vide impugned order stating that the petitioners failed to show sufficient cause for condoning the inordinate delay of 1646 days. Aggrieved by the said dismissal order dated 14.08.2023, the petitioners/appellants filed the present civil revision petition. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents. Perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners/appellants submits that the first appellate Court dismissed the I.A.No.523 of 2022 without appreciating the facts and circumstances. The first appellate Court failed to appreciate that procedural and technical hurdles shall not be allowed to come in the way of 4 VS,J C.R.P.No.2685 of 2023 the Court while doing substantial justice and therefore ought to have allowed the petition. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents in support of the impugned order has contended that as the petitioners have failed to show sufficient cause to condone the delay and as such the appellate Court has rightly dismissed the application and no interference is warranted. Therefore, requested this Court to dismiss the present Civil Revision Petition. 7. As can be seen from the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.523 of 2022 filed by the petitioners herein, admittedly the petitioners have not offered any explanation for the inordinate delay of 1646 days, except stating that they came to know about the death of the 2nd respondent after filing of the appeal. The appellate Court has specifically observed that on 04.03.2016, the appeal suit was adjourned to 29.04.2016 for taking steps on account of death of 2nd respondent and again from 29.04.2016, it was posted to 17.06.2016. As no steps were taken despite granting sufficient time and as there was no representation, the appeal was dismissed for default as against the 2nd respondent on 17.06.2016. 8. In the case of Basawaraj and Anr. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer1 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the discretion to condone the delay has to be exercised judiciously based on facts and circumstances of each case. It is further observed that the expression “sufficient cause” cannot 1 (2013) 14 SCC 81 5 VS,J C.R.P.No.2685 of 2023 be liberally interpreted if negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides is attributed to the party. It is further observed that even though limitation may harshly affect rights of a party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when prescribed by statue. It is further observed that in case a party has acted with negligence, lack of bona fides or there is inaction then there cannot be any justified ground for condoning the delay even by imposing conditions. It is further observed that if courts start condoning delay where no sufficient cause is made out by imposing conditions then that would amount to violation of statutory principles and showing utter disregard to legislature. 9. In the present case, the petitioners have not even cited a single reason that prevented them from filing the petition, despite sufficient time having been granted by the Court. In the absence of any cause, much less the sufficient cause, being shown by the appellants, the inordinate delay of 1646 days cannot be condoned. The order of the appellate Court dismissing the application is, therefore, well-founded and no interference is warranted therewith. 10. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date :11.09.2025. KGR