1 APHC010315662022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1214/2022 Between: 1. YEDINDLA VIJAI KUMAR, S/O. SESHANNA, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O.VEMPENTA VILLAGE, PAMULAPADU MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. PANDLA BHAGYA LAKSHMI, W/O.SESHA RAO, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O.GOVINDAPALLI VILLAGE, SIRUVELLA MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 2. KAMPARAJU PRAMEELA, W/O.SURESH BABU, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, R /O.NARAYANAPURARN VILLAGE, BANDI ATMAKURU MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 3. MIDHE VENKATESWARA GOWD, S/O, LATE MALLESWARA GOWD, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O.VEMPENTA PAMULAPADU KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. C SUBODH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. G R SUDHAKAR The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1214/2022 O R D E R: 1. The instant Civil Revision Petition (for short C.R.P) has been preferred against an Order dated 31.03.2021 in I.A.No.52 of 2019 in O.S.No.48 of 2013 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur. 2. It appears that by passing the impugned Order, the learned Court below has dismissed an application filed by the Petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, intended to condone the delay of 1255 days in filing an application to set aside the ex-parte Decree passed in O.S.No.48 of 2013. 3. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner at length. Perused the impugned Order passed by the learned Court below. 4. Learned Court below is of the opinion that the Petitioner has not filed any documentary evidence to satisfy the Court for condonation of delay of 1255 days. On perusal of the Affidavit filed in support of an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, it appears that the Petitioner have taken a plea before the learned Court below that he was working as a contract labour in Mumbai, residing in a slum, at that time, his health condition was deteriorated. The Respondent/Plaintiff filed the suit vide O.S.No.48 of 2013 with a mala-fide intention and by making false claims. Due to ill-health of the Petitioner, though appeared before the learned Court below, but could not file his Written Statement, thereby, the Suit was decreed ex-parte on 30.07.2015. It is further 3 contention of the petitioner that the Petitioner has suffered a stroke in the month of September, 2015, by which his right hand and sensor organs were affected. He has also facing trouble in speech. By such disorientation, mental and physical disability, he could not file proper application within time for setting aside the ex-parte decree. It is the contention of the Petitioner that the suit was filed on the basis of some concocted and false documents. It is required to permit the Petitioner to contest the matter. 5. Learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that there is no illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the learned Court below. That the Petitioner was absolutely not placed any documentary evidence on record, thus the impugned Order suffers no illegality and C.R.P is liable to be dismissed. 6. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order. 7. In deciding the grounds stated by the Petitioner before the learned Court below, the learned Court below is of the opinion that the petitioner has not placed any documentary evidence regarding his ill-health issued by any Hospital. The delay is more than four (04) years. To satisfy a Court for condonation of delay, the Petitioner has strict liability to satisfy a Court by assigning some sufficient reasons. The affidavit contains some ground regarding ill-health and stroke suffered by the Petitioner, but no documentary evidence was place. 8. At this juncture, I find no justification to admit the contention of the affidavit filed along with Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The 4 learned Court below was justified in holding that without any proof of document it is not possible to condone the delay of 1255 days. I find no justification to entertain the Petition. The reasons as stated by the learned Court below in dismissing the petition, is appears to be justified. Accordingly, the instant C.R.P., is dismissed, as meritless. 9. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, without costs. Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA KS Dated:02.01.2026. 5 04 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1214 OF 2022 DATED:02.01.2026. KS