::1:: APHC010092632026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] MONDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 590/2026 Between: 1. YAMA RAVANAMMA ALIAS LAKSHMI DEVI, W/O LATE VENKATESWARLU, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC HOUSE MAKER R/O RAJUPALEM VILLAGE TRIPURANTHAKAM MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT 2. YAMA VENKATA RMANA, S/O LATE VENKATESWARLU AGED ABOUT 40 YERS, HINDU, R/O RAJUPALEM VILLAGE TRIPURANTHAKAM MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT 3. YAMA SRIKANTH, S/O LATE VENKASTESWARLU AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, HINDU, R/O RAJUPALEM VILLAGE TRIPURANTHAKAM MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT 4. SIRIGIRI SUMALATHA, W/O RAMACHANDRA D/O LATE YAMA VENKATESWARLU, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, HINDU, R/O RAJUPALEM VILLAGE TRIPURANTHAKAM MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. POOSALA AYYAPPA, S/O GALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, HINDU, R/O D.NO.4/152 KONETI BAZAR, ::2:: MARKAPUR TOWN AND MANDAL PRAKASAM DISTRICT 2. M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, REP.BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, TRUNK ROAD, ONGOLE PRAKASAM 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 topleased to allow the CRP by setting aside the order and decree in I.A. No. 848 of 2023 in MVOP NO. 60 OF 2016 dated 12 -12-2025 on the file of court of VI Additional District Judge, Markapur by allowing the restoration petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. VELPULA BHOJARAJU YADAV Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. ::3:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA C.R.P.No.590 of 2026 This Court made the following ORDER: The present Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated12.12.2025 in I.A.No.848 of 2023 in MVOP No.60 of 2016 on the file of VI Additional District Judge, Prakasam at Markapur, wherein the application filed by the petitioners under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay of 1868 days in filing the petition under Order IX, Rule 9 of CPC to set aside the order dated 18.09.2018 was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the husband of the 1st petitioner was died in an accident on 14.07.2016 and petitioners herein being legal heirs filed MVOP No.60/2016 seeking compensation for the death of husband of 1st petitioner and father of other petitioners. Then the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (for short “MACT”), Markapur issued notices to the respondents and the matter was posted for enquiry. However, the enquiry did not commence and costs were not paid ::4:: as directed, at last the Tribunal dismissed the petition for default on 18.09.2018. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that due to ill health and advanced age, the 1st petitioner herein went to stay along with her son, who is working in Army at Bhiwandi District, Punjab. Learned counsel further submits that the 1st petitioner’s health recovered after almost one year; however due to adverse circumstances, the 1st petitioner lost her mobile phone and was unable to contact her counsel at Markapur. Unfortunately, in 2020, due to the pandemic and the Government imposed lockdown, the 1st petitioner was confined to her son’s house in Punjab. Recently, the 1st petitioner returned to her village and approached her counsel and enquired about the case. The 1st petitioner was informed by her counsel that the Court had dismissed the petition due to her long absence. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that due to aforesaid circumstances alone the petitioner was prevented from attending the Court and there was no wilful lapse on her part. In the interest of justice, the 1st petitioner requested the Court below to enquire into the petition and award compensation. Learned counsel further submits that there is a delay of 1,838 days in filing the application in I.A.No.848 of 2023 in M.V.O.P No.60/2016 under Order IX ::5:: Rule 9 of CPC on the file of VI Additional District Judge, Markapur and the same was dismissed on 12.12.2025. Aggrieved by the same, the present CRP is filed. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material placed on record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of High Court of Judicature at Madras in Arun Alexander Lakshman Proprietor M/s Alraj Builders vs. A.P. Vedavalli1, wherein it was observed as under: “32. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the explanation put-forth by the appellants is satisfactory. The learned Single Judge has declined to condone the delay mainly on the ground that the execution proceedings had been initiated and that the appellants were not diligent. In our view, opportunity is to be given to the appellants to put forth their defence, particularly in respect of the claim for compensation. Even though the appellants appear to be not vigilant as they ought to have been, yet their conduct on the whole does not warrant to castigate them as “irresponsible litigants”. The appellants who are educated ought to have been more vigilant. But their failure to take such extra vigilance should not have been made a ground for ousting them from litigation when there is a huge claim of compensation. 5. This Court has carefully considered the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application. However, the reasons assigned therein do not satisfactorily explained such an inordinate delay, except stating that she was at 1 2007 Supreme (Mad) 2102 ::6:: Punjab along with her son, since 2016 to 2023, not explained delay in day to day manner as required. The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners is not at all applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case for the reason that the petitioners have failed to furnish proper, cogent, and convincing reasons justifying the delay of 1868 days in filing the application. In H. Guruswamy & Others vs. A. Krishnaiah since deceased by LRs2 Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under: “The length of the delay is definitely a relevant matter which the court must take into consideration while considering whether the delay should be condoned or not. From the tenor of the approach of the respondents herein, it appears that they want to fix their own period of limitation for the purpose of instituting the proceedings for which law has prescribed a period of limitation. Once it is held that a party has lost his right to have the matter considered on merits because of his own inaction for a long, it cannot be presumed to be non-deliberate delay and in such circumstances of the case, he cannot be heard to plead that the substantial justice deserves to be preferred as against the technical considerations. While considering the plea for condonation of delay, the court must not start with the merits of the main matter. The court owes a duty to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation. It is only if the sufficient cause assigned by the litigant and the opposition of the other side is equally balanced that the court may bring into aid the merits of the matter for the purpose of condoning the delay.” 6. It is well settled law that while courts may adopt a liberal approach in condoning delay, such discretion cannot be 2 [2025] 1 S.C.R. 764 ::7:: exercised in the absence of sufficient cause. In the present case, the explanation offered is vague and lacks bona fides, and does not constitute sufficient cause within the meaning of law. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. _________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J DT: 30.03.2026 krk ::8:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA C.R.P.No.590 of 2026 DT: 30.03.2026 krk 113