APHC010228022025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1176/2025 Between: 1. NEELI RAMA SUBBAIAH, S/O LATE N.APPANNA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O D.NO.7 MANDAFYSR KADAPA (DT) 1. NEELI NAGESWARA RAO, S/O LATE N.APPANNA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O, THORRIVEMULA VILLAGE, MYLAVARAM MANDAL, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT R/O CHENNURU VILLAGE AND MANDAL YSR KADAPA (DT) 2. NEELI SREENIVASULU, S/O LATE N.APPANNA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O THORRIVEMULA MANDAL,YSR KADAPA (DT) 3. KARAM SUBBARAYUDU, S/O CHINNA GURAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS. RESIDING AT CHINNAKOMMERLA VILLAGE, THORRIVEMULA POST, MYLAVARAM MANDAL, YSR KADAPA (DT) 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 to aggrieved by the order dated 24.03.2024 in lA.No.1197 of 2023 in O.S.No.246 of 2021 on the file court, Jammalamadugu, YSR Kadapa (Dt), Wherein the application filed by the petitioner under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condoning the delay in 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1176/2025 NEELI RAMA SUBBAIAH, S/O LATE N.APPANNA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O D.NO.7-180, BRAHMIN STREET, CHENNURU MANDAFYSR KADAPA (DT)-516162 ...PETITIONER AND NAGESWARA RAO, S/O LATE N.APPANNA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O, THORRIVEMULA VILLAGE, MYLAVARAM MANDAL, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT R/O CHENNURU VILLAGE AND MANDAL YSR KADAPA (DT) NEELI SREENIVASULU, S/O LATE N.APPANNA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O THORRIVEMULA VILLAGE, MYLAVARAM MANDAL,YSR KADAPA (DT) KARAM SUBBARAYUDU, S/O CHINNA GURAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS. RESIDING AT CHINNAKOMMERLA VILLAGE, THORRIVEMULA POST, MYLAVARAM MANDAL, YSR KADAPA (DT) ...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 to aggrieved by the order dated 24.03.2024 in lA.No.1197 of 2023 in O.S.No.246 of 2021 on the file of the Honble Civil Judge (Junior Division) court, Jammalamadugu, YSR Kadapa (Dt), Wherein the application filed by the petitioner under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condoning the delay in IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI NEELI RAMA SUBBAIAH, S/O LATE N.APPANNA, AGED ABOUT 60 180, BRAHMIN STREET, CHENNURU ...PETITIONER NAGESWARA RAO, S/O LATE N.APPANNA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O, THORRIVEMULA VILLAGE, MYLAVARAM MANDAL, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT R/O CHENNURU VILLAGE AND NEELI SREENIVASULU, S/O LATE N.APPANNA, AGED ABOUT 62 VILLAGE, MYLAVARAM KARAM SUBBARAYUDU, S/O CHINNA GURAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS. RESIDING AT CHINNAKOMMERLA VILLAGE, THORRIVEMULA POST, MYLAVARAM MANDAL, YSR KADAPA (DT) ...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 to aggrieved by the order dated 24.03.2024 in lA.No.1197 of 2023 in of the Honble Civil Judge (Junior Division) court, Jammalamadugu, YSR Kadapa (Dt), Wherein the application filed by the petitioner under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condoning the delay in 2 filing the petition to set aside the exparte preliminary decree and the same was dismissed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court, Jammalamadugu, YSR Kadapa (Dt), on 24.03.2024 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 to stay all further proceedings in the petition filed by the respondent no.1 for the final decree for I.A.No.580/2023 in O.S. No.246/2021 n the file of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court, Jammalamadugu, Kadapa (Dt), and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. ZAMPANI BHANU RAJA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. V R REDDY KOVVURI 3 The Court made the following order: Assailing the correctness and the legality of the order dated 24.03.2024 passed by learned Junior Civil Judge, Jammalamadugu in Interlocutory Application No.1197 of 2023 in Original Suit No.246 of 2021, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19082. 2. The facts that led to filing of the present Civil Revision Petition are that: i) The petitioner herein is defendant No.1, respondent No.1 herein is plaintiff and respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein are defendant Nos.2 and 3 in O.S.No.246 of 2021. The suit was filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff seeking partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties by dividing the same into three equal shares and allotting one such share to the plaintiff and permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit schedule properties. The said suit was decreed ex parte on 22.02.2023. ii) Subsequently, the petitioner herein/defendant No.1 filed I.A.No.1197 of 2023, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking to condone the delay of 102 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree contending that he had migrated to Karnataka and was residing in Bellari District till June, 2023 and he had been making efforts to know the status of the suit, but could not contact his counsel due to network issues. It was further contended that he came to know about the decree only upon receipt of notice in Final Decree Petition in I.A.No.580 of 2023 and upon enquiry, learnt that the other 4 respondents had also not contested the matter due to mutual collusion. It was further contended that the delay was neither willful nor intentional. iii) The Court below, vide order dated 24.03.2025, dismissed the said application on the ground that the petitioner herein failed to substantiate the sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 102 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree dated 22.02.2023 and that the conduct of petitioner/defendant No.1 also established as negligent towards the due process of law. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed. 4. Heard Sri Zampani Bhanu Raja, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.Arun Kumar, learned counsel, representation Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the grounds of revision and the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the petition before the Court below, contended that the Court below, without appreciating the bona fide reasons for his non-appearance and the delay in filing the said petition, dismissed the application. He further contended that the Court below failed to consider the well settled principle that ‘sufficient cause’ under section 5 of limitation Act should be liberally interpreted, especially in cases involving poor and illiterate litigants, where procedural lapses should not override substantial justice. He further contended that that the petitioner, being an illiterate and economically 5 backward migrant labourer, was unable to follow up with the proceedings regularly and had placed complete trust in his engaged advocate. The absence of intentional negligence on the part of the petitioner was not properly considered by the trial Court. He further submitted that the delay in filing the set aside petition was neither deliberate nor wanton, but was occasioned by genuine and unavoidable reasons arising out of the petitioner’s migratory work and financial constraints. He further contended that the ex parte decree passed against the petitioner, if allowed to stand would cause irreparable loss and grave injustice by denying the petitioner his legitimate right to contest the suit and prove his case on merits. Hence, prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2, while reiterating the contents of the counter affidavit filed before the Court below, contended that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application after duly taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner herein/defendant No.1 did not properly explained the delay. He further contended that despite service of notices dated 22.10.2019, 22.10.2021 and 12.07.2021 through registered post, the petitioner did not respond. The petitioner received summons and remained ex parte and no advocate engaged. After receipt of notice in Final Decree Petition, the present application is filed and thus, the petitioner did not approach this Court with clean hands. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition deserves no consideration and liable to be dismissed. 6 7. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 8. As could be culled out from the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the material available on record, the suit in O.S.No.246 of 2021 was preliminarily decreed ex parte on 22.02.2023. The Interlocutory Application No.1197 of 2023 was filed seeking condonation of delay of 102 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree passed against the petitioner on the ground that the delay was neither deliberate nor wanton, but was occasioned by genuine and unavoidable reasons arising out of the petitioner’s migratory work and financial constraints. 9. At the outset, it is to be noted that the expression ‘sufficient cause’ under Section 5 of the Limitation Act must receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji1, held that a pragmatic and justice- oriented approach should be adopted while dealing with applications for condonation of delay and that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations. 10. In N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy2, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that: “It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the court Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say 1 (1987) 2 SCC 107 2 (1998) 7 SCC 123 7 that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. XXX Rule of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. Law of limitation fixes a life-span for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and the wasted time would never revisit. During efflux of time newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a life span must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. Law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim Interest reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be putt to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time. A court knows that refusal to condone delay would result foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the court is always deliberate. This Court has held that the words "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide Shakuntala Devi Jain Vs. Kuntal Kumari [AIR 1969 SC 575] and State of West Bengal Vs. The Administrator, Howrah Municipality [AIR 1972 SC 749]. It must be remembered that in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him. If the explanation does not smack of mala fides or it is not put forth as part of a dilatory strategy the court must show utmost consideration to the suitor. But when there is reasonable ground to think that the delay was occasioned by the party deliberately to gain time then the court should lean against acceptance of the explanation. While condoning delay the Could should not forget the opposite party altogether. It must be borne in mind that he is a looser and he too would have incurred quiet a large litigation expenses. It would be a salutary guideline that when courts condone the delay due to laches on the part of the applicant the court shall compensate the opposite party for his loss.” 8 11. In the present case, the explanation offered by the petitioner that he had migrated for work and could not effectively pursue the litigation appears to be reasonable, particularly considering his status as an illiterate and economically backward labourer. There is nothing on record to establish that the delay was deliberate or motivated by mala fides. Moreover, the delay sought to be condoned is only 102 days, which cannot be said to be inordinate. Further, no serious prejudice would be caused to the respondents, if the delay is condoned, whereas grave prejudice would be caused to the petitioner, if he is denied an opportunity to contest the suit on merits. In this background, the contentions advanced by the respondents are unsustainable. 12. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds that the reasons set out in the affidavit filed in support of the Interlocutory application were not properly considered by the Court below while dismissing the application. Hence, this Court is inclined to interfere with the order of the Court below. 13. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The order dated 24.03.2025 passed in I.A.No.1197 of 2023 in O.S.No.246 of 2021 by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Jammalamadugu is set aside. Consequently, the delay of 102 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree is condoned. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications are closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 12.03.2026 MP 9 279 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:1176 of 2025 Date: 12.03.2026 MP