APHC010289602025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI ! FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1952 OF 2025 Petition filed under Section 115 of CPC, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the Order dated 10-03-2025 passed in I.A.No.475 of 2024 in the unnumbered A.S. /2024 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Nellore by condoning the delay of 48 days. Between: Medapalli Sujatha, W/o.Madhusudhan Rao, aged about 50 years. Cultivation, R/o.Yerrukollu, Duthalur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. ...Petitioner/Petitioner/Appellant AND 1. Challa Chinna Venkataiah, S/o.Ankaiah, aged 65 years, R/o.Yerrukollu, Ravellavari Palli Village, Duthalur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. 2. Challa Mugava Thirupathaiah, S/o.Peda Venkataiah, aged 38 years, R/o.Yerrukollu, Ravellavari Palli Village, Duthalur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. 3. Ravelia Venkataiah alias Sokaiah, S/o.Chandraiah, aged 75 years, R/o.Yerrukollu, Ravellavari Palli Village, Duthalur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. 4. Ravella Venkataiah, S/o.Venkata Swami, aged 59 years, R/o.D.No. 10/1, Yaganti Gold Apartments, Arundelpeta, Guntur, Guntur District. ...Respondents/Respondents/Respondents lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition filed 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 direct the respondents not to interfere with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property, pending herein in the main CRP. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri M.Pitchaiah Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1,2 & 4: Sri D.Krishna Murthy Counsel for the Respondent No.3:-- The Court made the following: APHCOI 0289602025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1952/2025 Between: 1.MEDAPALLI SUJATHA, W/O.MADHUSUDHAN RAO AGED ABOUT R/0. YERRUKOLLU, DUTHALUR 50 YEARS, CULTIVATION, MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1.CHALLA CHINNA VENKATAIAH, S/0. ANKAIAH, AGED 65 YEARS, RAVELLAVARI PALLI VILLAGE, R/O. YERRUKOLLU, DUTHALURMANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 2.CHALLA MUGAVA THIRUPATHAIAH, S/0. PEDA VENKATAIAH, RAVELLAVARI PALLI AGED 38 YEARS, R/O. YERRUKOLLU, VILLAGE, DUTHALURMANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 3.RAVELLA VENKATAIAH ALIAS SOKAIAH, , S/0. CHANDRAIAH AGED 75 YEARS, R/O. YERRUKOLLU VILLAGE, DUTHALUR MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 4.RAVELLA VENKATAIAH, S/0. VENKATA SWAMI, AGED 59 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 10/1, YAGANTI GOLD APARTMENTS, ARUNDELPETA, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. RAVELLAVARI PALLI ...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 topleased to set aside the order dated 10.03.2025 in I.A.No.475 of 2 2024 in the unnumbered A.S /2024 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Nellore by condoning the delay of 48 days and pass lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 direct the respondents not to interfere with my peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property, pending herein in the main CRP and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.M PITCHAIAH Counsel for the Respondent{S): 1.D KRISHNA MURTHY ■ "7. IS. 3 The Court made the following Order; The petitioner herein filed a suit in O.S.No.51 of 2019 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur, SPSR Nellore District, against the respondents herein/defendant Nos.1 to 4 for the relief of perpetual injunction, restraining them and their men from trespassing, occupying or dispossessing her from the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property. The learned Senior Civil Judge vide judgment dated 04.03.2024, dismissed the suit with costs. Against the judgment of the learned Senior Civil Judge in O.S.No.51 of 2019, the petitioner herein preferred first appeal on the file of the learned Principal District Judge Nellore. Along with the first appeal, the petitioner herein filed I.A.No.475 of 2024 in the first appeal, seeking to condone the delay of 48 days in filing the appeal. The learned Principal District Judge, Nellore, vide the impugned order dated 10.03.2025, dismissed the said I.A. on the ground that no valid reason has. been assigned for condoning the delay of 48 days. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that first appeal is statutory right conferred on the petitioner, and having regard to the same and as the petitioner gave plausible reason for not preferring the first appeal within the time of limitation, the appellate court ought to have exercised its discretion in condoning the delay. Hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order and condone the delay. 2. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents too concurs with the submissison that the right of first appeal is a statutory right, but he submits that no proper reason has been assigned by the petitioner for condoning the delay of 48 days. 4. The suit is filed seeking permanent injunction restraining respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the plaint schedule property. Substantive rights of the petitioner are involved in the suit. There cannot be any dispute that first appeal is the statutory right conferred on a party. There is delay of 48 days in preferring the first appeal by the petitioner. There must be ‘sufficient cause’ for condonation of delay. Sufficient the cause means a cause which is beyond the control of the party invoking aid of the said provision. In the case on hand, the only reason assigned by the petitioner is that due to lack of legal knowledge, she failed to file the appeal within the time. It is no doubt true that the petitioner engaged a counsel and she is expected to take advice of the counsel while preferring the appeal. Therefore, the reason assigned, though is not satisfactory, still, in view of the fact that first appeal is the statutory right and substantive property rights are involved in the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the appellate court ought to have exercised its discretion and ought to have condoned delay of 48 days in preferring the appeal. \ 5 / In view of the foregoing reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The impugned Order dated 10.03.2025 in I.A.No.475 of 2024 in unnumbered A.S. on the file of the Principal District Judge, Nellore is set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.475 of 2024 stands allowed. The learned Principal District Judge, Nellore is directed to take up the first appeal on the file and pass orders in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. There shall be no order as to costs. 5. As a sequel. Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- A VIJAYA BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \ SECTION OFFICER To, ■n 1. The Principal Dlsfncf Judge, Nellore SPSR Nellore District. 2. One CC to Sri M.Pitchaiah, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri D.Krishna Murthy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies BSV sree \ \ \ HIGH COURT DATED:10/10/2025 ORDER CRP NO. 1952 OF 2025 ALLOWING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITIOIN WITHOUT COSTS