1 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI I.A. No.1 of 2024 in/and C.R.P.No.2020 of 2024 ORDER: Challenging the correctness and legality of the order passed by the Principal District Judge, Nellore in Interlocutory Application No.1197 of 2018 in an unnumbered Appeal Suit, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. Interlocutory Application No.1 of 2024 is filed seeking condonation of delay of 1876 days in filing the Civil Revision Petition. 2. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff and respondent herein is the defendant in O.S.275 of 2013 on the file of the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore. 3. The petitioner, being the plaintiff, filed O.S. No.275 of 2013 for recovery of money based on a promissory note. The said suit was dismissed on merits on 14.02.2018. Aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful plaintiff preferred an appeal along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking to condone the delay of 203 days in filing the appeal, however, the same was dismissed on 19.03.2019 on the ground that the petitioner failed to explain the delay properly. Assailing the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed along with an application seeking to condone the delay of 1876 days in filing the CRP. 2 4. Heard Sri N.S.Rupesh, learned counsel, representing Sri Venkata Rao Penumaka, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt Marella Radha, learned counsel for the respondent. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application and the grounds of revision, contended that the first appellate Court failed to apply its mind properly while dealing with the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. He further submitted that the counsel, who appeared on behalf of the petitioner before the first appellate Court, did not inform the petitioner in time about the status of the case and the orders passed therein and thereby the said delay occurred. He further submitted that as held by various High Courts, it is not necessary to explain each and every day’s delay, particularly when valuable rights of the parties are involved and that dismissal of the application solely on the ground of delay is unsustainable under law. He further contended that if the said delay is not condoned, the petitioner’s valuable rights would be seriously prejudiced and he would be deprived of the opportunity to contest the appeal. Hence, prayed to allow the application by imposing costs to compensate the delay. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner cannot throw the burden on his counsel and as held in several judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the delay must be explained day to day. She further contended that the petitioner has failed to satisfactorily explain 3 each day’s delay and the Interlocutory Application is vague and bereft of valid reasons. Hence, prayed to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition. In support of her contention, she relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Majji Sannemma Alias Sanyasirao v. Reddy Sridevi1. 7. Pursed the record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 8. As could be seen from the affidavit filed in support of the Interlocutory Application for condonation of delay before the first appellate Court, the petitioner stated that as his counsel became sick and remained out of station, the appeal could not be filed in time and that there were no intentional laches on his part. On the other hand, the respondent filed counter before the first appellate Court contending that the petitioner had not approached the Court with clean hands and that the reasons assigned for the delay were not proper. The first appellate Court, upon consideration of the said contentions, dismissed the said application on the ground that the delay of nearly seven months had not been satisfactorily explained by the petitioner. 9. In Manni Sannemma’s case (cited supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court referred to the judgment of P.K.Ramachandran v. State of Kerala (1997) 7 CC 448, wherein it has been held that : “While refusing to condone the delay of 565 days, it is observed that in the absence of reasonable, satisfactory or even appropriate explanation for seeking condonation of delay, the same is not to be condoned lightly. It is further observed that the law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but 1 (2021) 18 Supreme Court Cases 384 4 it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes and the Court have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. It is further observed that while exercising discretion for condoning the delay, the Court has to exercise discretion judiciously.” 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court also referred to the judgment in Pundlik Jalam Patil v. Jalgaon Medium Project (2008) 17 SCC 448 wherein it was held that: “…the Court cannot enquire into belated and stale claims on the ground of equity. Delay defeats equity. The courts help those who are vigilant and do not slumber over their rights.” Applying the law laid down in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the present case and after considering the averments in the application for condonation of delay, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has not satisfactorily explained the delay and that the first appellate Court has rightly dismissed the Interlocutory Application. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner is stale. 11. Perusal of the record shows, there is also a delay of 1876 days in filing the Civil Revision Petition. As could be seen from the affidavit filed in support of the Civil Revision Petition, the petitioner stated that the counsel appearing before the first appellate Court did not inform to the petitioner about the dismissal of the Interlocutory Application. The counsel died on 01.02.2022, however, the petitioner came to know about the death of his counsel recently and enquired about the suit details and found that the delay application dismissed in the year 2019, and that the petitioner obtained certified copies on 5 13.08.2024 and approached this Court by filing the present Civil Revision Petition. 12. As seen from the above, it appears that the entire blame has been thrown on the head of the counsel, who was appearing for the petitioner before the first appellate Court. Even if assumes for a moment that the concerned counsel was negligent, this, by itself, cannot be a ground to condone long and inordinate delay, as the litigant owes a duty to be vigilant of his own rights and is expected to be equally vigilant about the judicial proceedings pending in the Court initiated at his instance. The litigant, therefore, should not be permitted to throw the entire blame on the head of the counsel and thereby disown him at any time and seek relief. 13. In view of the foregoing discussion, the petitioner failed to explain the delay satisfactorily before the lower appellate Court in filing appeal and also failed to explain the delay in filing Civil Revision Petition before this Court. 14. Accordingly, the Interlocutory Application No.1 of 2024 is dismissed. Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition is also dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications are closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 04.02.2026 MP 6 305 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI I.A. No.1 of 2024 in/and C.R.P.No.2020 of 2024 04.02.2026 MP