1 HN, J C.R.P.No.474_2020 APHC010040862020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 474/2020 Between: 1. THOGATA DASTAGIRI, S/O PULLANNA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,HINDU, AGRICULTURIST, R/ O KORATAMADDI VILLAGE, GADIVEMULA MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. DONTHARABOINA RAMA MOHAN, S/o D. Krishnudu, aged about 45 years, Occ. Agriculturist, R/o Koratamddi Village, Gadivemula Mandal, Kurnool district. ...RESPONDENT 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 III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal passed order in I.A. No. 2193/2018 in C.F.R.No. 9719/2018 in A.S. No. /2018 dated 28-11-2019 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G SRAVAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent: 1. 2 HN, J C.R.P.No.474_2020 ORDER: 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.2193 of 2018 in C.F.R.No.9719 of 2018, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 41 Rule 3(A)(1) of the CPC, seeking condonation of a delay of 642 days in preferring an appeal against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.22 of 2016, on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Nandyal, was dismissed. 2. The learned III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal, dismissed the application filed by the petitioner on the sole ground that petitioner had not produced any medical records in support of his claim of ill health. 3. The petitioner stated that he was unable to contact his advocate on as he suffered with paralysis in December 2017. Thereafter, his family members were also unable to contact the counsel, and that the result of the suit came to the knowledge of the petitioner only on 28.11.2018. He was informed that the suit had been dismissed on 21.02.2017 and that the appeal ought to have been preferred on or before 21.03.2017. The only ground stated for not preferring the appeal within time was his ill health and he was bedridden. 4. The learned Judge observed that the petitioner ought to have instructed his family members to approach the advocate well in advance to prefer the appeal and that the inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner indicated the negligence on part of the petitioner. The petitioner has not filed 3 HN, J C.R.P.No.474_2020 any documentary evidence supporting the claim of his ill health for condoning the delay in 642 days. 5. Perused the record. 6. The petitioner had filed a suit for recovery of an amount under a promissory note, which came to be dismissed. The petitioner has categorically stated on oath that he suffered paralysis and was bedridden. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the trial Court ought to have advised the petitioner to furnish the medical records, and on such advice the petitioner could be expected to furnish the said records. The court also appears to have not called for any medical records before dismissing the application filed. 7. The Court ought not to be hyper-technical in considering the issue of condoning the delay in approaching the Courts. Though day-to-day delay is required to be explained by the party seeking condonation of delay. 8. It is pertinent to refer to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ram Sumiran and others Vs. D.D.C. and others1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that rural background of the petitioners therein was considered and lack of legal awareness amongst the litigants would have to be considered by the Courts while considering the applications for bringing the legal representatives on record and accordingly 1 AIR 1985 SC 606 4 HN, J C.R.P.No.474_2020 allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court and directed that the abatement be set aside. 9. It is also relevant to refer to the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another Vs. Mst.Katiji and others2 held that the Court should have adopted a liberal approach while considering the condonation delay application and observed that ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late refusing to condone the delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated and once delay is condoned the cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. It also held that every day’s delay must be explained. It does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made and that the said doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India also observed that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also held at para Nos.5 and 6 as follows; “……5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. 6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. Making a 2 AIR 1987 SC 1353 5 HN, J C.R.P.No.474_2020 justice-oriented approach from this perspective, there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay in the institution of the appeal. The fact that it was the 'State' which was seeking condonation and not a private party was altogether irrelevant. The doctrine of equality before law demands that all litigants, including the State as a liti-gant, are accorded the same treatment and the law is admin- istered in an even handed manner. There is no warrant for according a stepmotherly treatment when the 'State' is the applicant praying for condonation of delay. In fact experi- ence shows that on account of an impersonal machinary (no one in charge of the matter is directly hit or hurt by the judgment sought to be subjected to appeal) and the in-herited bureaucratic methodology imbued with the note-mak- ing, file pushing, and passing-on-the-buck ethos, delay on its part is less difficult to understand though more diffi- cult to approve. In any event, the State which represents the 18 of 21 collective cause of the community, does not deserve a litigant- non-grata status. The Courts therefore have to be informed with the spirit and philosophy of the provision in the course of the interpretation of the expression "suffi- cient cause". So also the same approach has to be evidenced in its application to matters at hand with the end in view to do even handed justice on mertis in preference to the approach which scuttles a decision on merits. Turning to the facts of the matter giving rise to the present appeal, we are satisfied that sufficient cause exists for the delay. The order of the High Court dismissing the appeal before it as time barred, is therefore. set aside. Delay is condoned. And the matter is remitted to the High Court. The High Court will now dispose of the appeal on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to both the sides.” 11. On these considerations, this Court is of the considered view that the appeal of the petitioner would have to be considered on its own merits. As such, the order passed by the III Additional District Judge, Kannur at Nandyal, deserves to be set aside. The appeal of the petitioner shall be numbered and taken on file. 12. Though notice sent by this Court was served on the respondents, none appeared before this Court. As such, the matter is heard and decided in the 6 HN, J C.R.P.No.474_2020 absence of the respondents. Accordingly, the present Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date:11.03.2026 NKA 7 HN, J C.R.P.No.474_2020 89 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 474 of 2020 Date: 11.03.2026 NKA