APHC010619992025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO SECOND APPEAL NO: 821/2025 Between: 1. POLIMERA LAKSHMI THULASI PADMA LATHA,, W/O DURGI NAIDU, AGED 53 YEARS, HINDU, HOUSEHOLD DUITES,R/O KOTHAGRAHARAM, VIZIANAGARAM, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT AND 1. KONATHALA HIMA VENKATA APPALA NAIDU, S/o Late Surya Apparao, Hindu, aged 53 years R/o.5-5-6/1,Gavaraa Veedhi, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District. ...RESPONDENT Appeal under section ___________ against ordersAppellant beg to present this Memorandum of Second Appeal before this Honble court against the Decree and Judgment dated 05.05.2025 passed in A.S.No.60 of 2019 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Vizianagram by confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.358/2012, dated 03.06.2019 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagram at Vizianagram District IA 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 may be pleased to Condone the Delay of (77)days in filling the petition and pass such IA NO: 2 OF 2025 2 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 may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings including execution of the Judgment and Decree in A.S. NO.60 of 2019 dated 05.05.2025 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Vizianagaram District and pass such Counsel for the Appellant: 1. G V V S VARA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent: 1. The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO I.A.No.1 of 2025 IN/AND SECOND APPEAL No.821 of 2025 COMMON JUDGMENT: I.A.No.1 of 2025 is filed to condone the delay of 77 days in filing the second appeal. 2. The reasons assigned in the accompanying affidavit are as follows: “…8. I further submit that the Lr Court Opinion that the Trial Court came to right conclusion and the impugned Judgement and Decree passes by the Trial Court is factually and legally sustainable, there is no necessity to interfere with the finding of the Trial Court and the Appeal Suit is liable to be Dismissed. But the Due to this and also lock of knowledge, myself filed the present Second Appeal after lapse of (77) days. The delay in filling the Present Second Appeal is not the intentional one on our part. SO I am hereby requesting you to condone the delay of (77) days in filling the present petition. If the Hon'ble Court not allowed the petition by condoning the delay of (77) days in filling S.A, the Appellant/Petitioner will be put to irreparable loss and such prejudice will be caused to us…” 3. The Court owes a duty to first ascertain the bona fides and the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation. Then, the Court may look into the merits of the case for the purpose of condoning the delay. It is also apposite to refer and rely upon the decision in the case of K.B.Lal (Krishna Bahadur Lal) v. Gyanendra Pratap & Ors. 1 , wherein, after revisiting the law on the aspect of condonation of delay, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: "There is no gainsaying the fact that the discretionary power of a court to condone delay must be exercised judiciously and it is not to be exercised in cases where there is gross negligence and/or want of due diligence on part of the litigant (See Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao v. Reddy Sridevi & Ors. (2021) 18 SCC 384).The discretion is also not 1 2024 SCC Online SC 508 4 supposed to be exercised in the absence of any reasonable, satisfactory or appropriate explanation for the delay (See P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala and Anr., (1997) 7 SCC 556). Thus, it is apparent that the words 'sufficient cause' in Section 5 of the Limitation Act can only be given a liberal construction, when no negligence, nor inaction, nor want of bona fide is imputable to the litigant undefined Basawaraj and Anr. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer., (2013) 14 SCC 81. The principles which are to be kept in mind for condonation of delay were succinctly summarised by the Apex Court in Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy & Ors., (2013) 12 SCC 649 and are reproduced as under: "(i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented, non- pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice. (ii) The terms "sufficient cause" should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact-situation. (iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis. (iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of. (v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact. (vi) It is to be kept in mind that adherence to strict proof should not affect public justice and cause public mischief because the courts are required to be vigilant so that in the ultimate eventuate there is no real failure of justice. (vii) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsulate the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play. (viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay undefined of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation. (ix) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into 5 consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach. (x) If the explanation offered is concocted, or the grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such a litigation." 4. Upon careful perusal of the affidavit, it reflects the petitioner's and the advocate's cavalier attitude towards the Court. 5. As there are no valid reasons assigned in the affidavit filed in support of the interlocutory application, I.A.No.1 of 2025 is dismissed with costs of Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand only) payable to the District Legal Services Authority, Vizianagaram. The Principal District Judge, Vizianagaram, is directed to collect the amount from the appellant within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the appellant fails to pay the amount, she shall be sent to civil prison for a period of two (02) weeks. 6. Since I.A.No.1 of 2025 is dismissed with costs, present Second Appeal is also dismissed. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 28.11.2025 KBN 6 28 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO I.A.No.1 of 2025 IN/AND SECOND APPEAL No.821 of 2025 28.11.2025 KKBBNN