APHC010028162022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] TUESDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 365 and 221 of 2022 CRP. No.365 of 2022 Between: 1. SAKKUBAI,, W/O LATE SELVAM, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS 2. KASTURI,, W/O NAGARAJA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, 3. S.BHASKARAN,, S/O LATE SELVAM, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 4. S.KESAVAN,, S/O LATE SELVAM AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 5. S.RAJENDRAN,, S/O LATE SELVAM, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, 6. S.BABU,, S/O LATE SELVAM,AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT D.NO.27-111/1 TELEPHONE COLONY CHITTOOR TOWN AND DISTRICT. 7. VANAJA, W/O KANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT RAGIMANUPENTA VILLAGE, BANGARUPALAYAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT 8. S.AMLA,, W/O D.MONOHAR, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT KONAPALLE VILLAGE,PERIYAMBADUI POST, YADAMARI MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT 1 TO 5 AND 8 ARE RESIDING AT KONAPALLI VILLAGE, PERIYAMBADUI POSTYADAMARI MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. APPASWAMY NAIDU DIED, APPASWAMY NAIDU (DIED) 2. A KAMALAMMA, W/O LATE A.APPASWAMI NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARSHINDU,HOUSE WIFE 3. A LOKESANADHA NAIDU, S/O LATE A.APPASWAMI NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 61YEARS,HINDU, CULTIVATION 4. A NARSIMHULU NAIDU, S/O LATE A.APPASWAMI NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, HINDU, CULTIVATION 5. A DORASANI, W/O SUBRAMANYAM NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS HINDU, HOUSE WIFE, RESIDING PENUMUR VILLAGE, POST AND MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...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 toAggrieved by the orders passed in I.A.No.263 of 2016 in Un-numbered A.S (O.S. No. 184 of 2001 on the file of Principal District Judge, Chittoor, dt. 9.12.2021, the above named petitioners beg to present this Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. L J VEERA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. 2 CRP.No.221 of 2022 Between: 1. SAKKUBAI, W/O LATE SELVAM, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS 2. KASTURI,, W/O NAGARAJA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, 3. S.BHASKARAN,, S/O LATE SELVAM, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 4. S.KESAVAN,, S/O LATE SELVAM AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 5. .S.RAJENDRAN,, S/O LATE SELVAM, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, 6. S.BABU,, S/O LATE SELVAM,AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT D.NO.27-111/1 TELEPHONE COLONY CHITTOOR TOWN AND DISTRICT. 7. VANAJA,, '.W/O KANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT RAGIMANUPENTA VILLAGE, BANGARUPALAYAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT 8. S.AMLA,, WW/O D.MONOHAR, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT KONAPALLE VILLAGE,PERIYAMBADUI POST, YADAMARI MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT 1 TO 5 AND 8 ARE RESIDING AT KONAPALLI VILLAGE, PERIYAMBADUI POSTYADAMARI MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. APPASWAMY NAIDU DIED, (DIED) 2. A KAMALAMMA, W/O LATE A.APPASWAMI NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARSHINDU,HOUSE WIFE 3. A LOKESANADHA NAIDU, S/O LATE A.APPASWAMI NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 61YEARS,HINDU, CULTIVATION 4. A NARSIMHULU NAIDU, S/O LATE A.APPASWAMI NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, HINDU, CULTIVATION 5. A DORASANI, W/O SUBRAMANYAM NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS HINDU, HOUSE WIFE, RESIDING PENUMUR VILLAGE, POST AND MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...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 toAggrieved by the orders passed in I.A No.265 of 2016 in Un-numbered A.S ( O.S. No. 92 of 2003 ion the file of Principal District Judge, Chittoor, dated 9.12.2021, the above named petitioners beg to present this Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. L J VEERA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following Common Order : 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs.365 and 221 of 2022 COMMON ORDER: 1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 09.12.2021 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Chittoor in IA.No. 263 of 2016 in un-numbered A.S. in OS.No.184 of 2001 and IA No. 265 of 2016 in un-numbered A.S. in OS.No.92 of 2003. 2. The petitioners had filed the said interlocutory applications seeking condonation of delay of 1485 days and 1468 days in representing the appeals filed preferred against the judgments passed in OS.No.184 of 2001 and OS.No. 92 of 2003, respectively. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, the appeals were filed within time, the delay in their representation occurred due to ill- health of the petitioners and the fact that the deponent’s son had to undergo surgery on two occasions, leaving no one else to attend to the matter. Consequently, delay of 1485 days and 1468 days occurred. 3. The said interlocutory applications were therefore filed seeking condonation of the aforesaid delays. The learned Judge, however, held that such inordinate delays could not be treated lightly and that strong and sufficient reasons were required to justify condonation. On these considerations, the learned Judge dismissed the applications filed by the petitioners seeking condonation of delay. 4 4. Notices issued to the respondents were returned unserved. Learned counsel for the petitioners has filed a memo stating that the notices were sent to the addresses mentioned in the plaint, and therefore, service of notice may be deemed to have been effected. It is further submitted that the Court ought to consider the applications for condonation of delay in the representation of the appeals independently, without requiring the participation of the respondents. However, in the present cases, the respondents have in fact participated in the consideration of the applications filed by the petitioners seeking condonation of delay before the trial Court. 5. Notices issued by this Court were also returned unserved. However, since the notices were sent to the last known addresses by registered post with acknowledgment due, service of notice on the respondents is deemed to be sufficient. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material on record. 7. Insofar as the dismissal of the applications seeking condonation of delay in the representation of the appeals is concerned, the learned Judge erred in treating the said applications as ones seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeals. This error is apparent on the face of the record and warrants interference. 8. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 09.12.2021 passed in I.A. Nos. 263 in un-numbered A.S. in OS.No.184 of 2001 and 5 IA.No.265 of 2016 in un-numbered A.S. in OS.No.92 of 2003 by the learned Principal District Judge, Chittoor, is hereby set aside, and the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed. The learned District Judge shall issue regular numbers to the appeals, and dispose of the same on merits as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of nine months from the date of receipt of this order. 9. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N KGM 6 314 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs.365 and 221 of 2022 Dated 31.03.2026 KGM