APHC010246602022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1823/2022 Between: 1. GUGGULLAVENKATARAMANA REDDY,, S/O. VENKATA KONDA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, 2. GUGGULLASREENIVASA REDDY,, S/O.VENKATA KONDA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF NALLABALLI VILLAGE, MUDDANUR MANDAL, YSR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. VALLAPU RAGHU RAMA MURTHY, S/O.VENKATA SUBBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC EMPLOYEE, R/O.D.NO.7/492-D, JAYA NAGAR COLONY, KADAPA CITY, YSR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. V R REDDY KOVVURI Counsel for the Respondent: 1. B V APARNA LAKSHMI The Court made the following: 2 ORDER:- Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Jammalamadugu in I.A.No.27 of 2019 in O.S.No.31 of 2011. 2. The petitioners filed the I.A. seeking condonation of delay of 427 days in filing the petition under Order 9 Rule 9 of C.P.C. The suit was dismissed on 28.08.2017 and the petitioners filed I.A.No.27 of 2019 seeking condonation of a delay of 427 days. The learned Judge dismissed the I.A. and the petitioners aggrieved by the said order have filed the present CRP. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the sole reason assigned by the learned judge for dismissing the I.A. is non- explanation of the delay caused and the petitioners not submitting any proof of treatment at Vijayawada. The learned counsel further submits that the 2nd petitioner had suffered mental illness and was treated at a hospital in Vijayawada and during the interim period, the suit was dismissed for non- prosecution. After getting the 2nd petitioner treated, the 1st petitioner verified about the status of the suit and came to know that the same was dismissed for default. The petitioners filed the application seeking condonation of delay and the learned Judge had dismissed the application on the sole ground that there is no sufficient cause shown and there was a deliberate negligence on the part of the petitioners in filing the petition within time. 3 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the petitioners ought to have explained the delay in a proper manner and also instead of merely submitting that the 2nd petitioner suffered mental disorder, ought to have submitted some documents to substantiate his grounds for the abnormal delay. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners relies on the judgment in Inder Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh1. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that for sub serving the cause of justice the delay caused in filing the appeal was condoned. 7. The suit was filed for the relief of declaration and a consequential injunction. The substantial rights of the litigant would have to be adjudicated on merits. On the facts of this case, the 2nd petitioner is set to have suffered mental disorder which required treatment and as the 1st petitioner was only available to take care of the 2nd petitioner he could not focus on the suit filed by him. The steps taken for restoring the suit with the delay of 495 days were rejected by the trial Court. 8. In cases where the litigants suffering from mental illness and not been able to pursue the case appropriately and any delay caused in taking steps for restoring the suit ought to have been considered with a liberal approach. The 1 2025 Live Law (SC) 339 4 Courts also cannot expect the medical record relating to the kind of mental disorder to be placed on record for condoning the delay. Even the litigants and their immediate family members generally avoid discussing about the mental illness of the patient and would not prefer submitting such medical record into the Court. 9. The suit is filed for declaration of title and consequential injunction. As substantial rights of parties are at stake, the suit ought to be decided on merits. The C.R.P is considered on the sole ground that adjudicating a suit on technicalities instead of merits would not render substantial justice. The Courts of law are went to sub serve the cause of justice. 10. On the facts of this case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the delay caused in filing the application under Order IX Rule 9 of C.P.C deserves to be condoned and the suit is restored to file. 11. On these considerations, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the O.S.No.31 of 2011 is restored to file. Since the suit was filed in the year 2011, the trial Court shall endeavour to complete the trial and dispose of the suit on merits, preferably within a period of eight (08) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date.19.02.2026 SR