APHC010426782025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] TUESDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD I.A.NO.1 OF 2025 IN/AND SECOND APPEAL NO: 608/2025 Between: 1. BOTCHA VENKATINAIDU, S/O LATE APPALANAIDU, AGED 65 YEARS, HINDU, R/O.KANCHARAM, OPP TO BC COLONY, RAJAM MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. KARNENI APPARAO NAIDU,, S/O LATE VENKATA APPALA NAIDU, AGED 72 YEARS, R/O. CHELIKANIVALASA, R.A.VALASA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. GEDDA SURYA RAO, S/O GURUNAIDU, AGED 41 YEARS, HINDU, CULTIVATION. RESIDENT OF KANCHARAM VILLAGE, RAJAM MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. GEDELA DALINAIDU, S/O SURAPPADU, AGED 49 YEARS, HINDU, RESIDENT OF KANCHARAM VILLAGE, RAJAM MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal under section ___________ against ordersbegs to present this Memorandum of Second Appeal against the Decree and Judgment dated 07.02.2024 in AS No.82 of 2019 on the file of the Principal District Judge, 2 Srikakulam in confirming the Judgment dated 18.02.2019 in OS No.105 of 2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Rajam, for the following among other grounds 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 pleased to condone the delay of 433 days in filing the appeal against the Decree and Judgment dated 07.02.2024 in AS No.82 of 2019 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Srikakulam, in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. G RAMA GOPAL Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. A RAVI SHANKAR 3 The Court made the following ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri G. Rama Gopal, Ld. Counsel for the Appellants and Sri A. Ravi Shankar, Ld. Counsel for the Respondents. 2. Interlocutory Application No.01 of 2025 is filed for condonation of delay of 433 days in filing the present Second Appeal. The Second Appeal has been filed assailing the Order passed by the 1st Appellate Court confirming the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court. 3. The facts on record would indicate that the Respondents/Plaintiffs herein have filed O.S.No.105 of 2012 on the file of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajam seeking Permanent Injunction against the Appellants/ Defendants herein. After elaborate trial, the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajam, vide Judgment and Decree dated 18.02.2019 in O.S.No.105 of 2012 was pleased to decree the suit and had granted Permanent Injunction in favour of the Respondents/Plaintiffs and against the Appellants/Defendants. 4. This Decree of Permanent Injunction dated 18.02.2019, is challenged by the Appellants/Defendants in A.S.No.82 of 2019. Vide Judgment and Decree dated 07.02.2024, the Principal District Judge, Srikakulam, after having considered the issues raised by the Appellants/ Defendants, was pleased to dismiss the First Appeal. 5. On perusal of the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court, this Court notices that the facts which are disputed by the Defendants had been dealt with by both the Courts. The findings on facts rendered are concurrent in nature. 6. The Interlocutory Application No.01 of 2025 is filed seeking condonation of delay of 433 days. Ld. Counsel for the Appellants has taken this Court through the Affidavit filed in support of this Application bearing I.A.No.1 of 2025. The reasons for the delay have been stated by the Appellants in Para Nos. 9 and 10 of the Affidavit, which are usefully extracted hereunder: 4 “9. I state that the Hon'ble Appellate Court passed the Judgment on 07.02.2024 in AS No.82 of 2019 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Srikakulam, however we are not aware of passing of the judgment due to the communication gap as we could not enquire from our local counsel and ultimately when we approached our counsel during first week of November, 2024 we were informed about passing of the judgment by the Hon'ble Appellate Court and on our instructions copy application was filed for certified copy on 03.12.2024 and the certified copy of the judgment and decree was made ready on 31.12.2024. 10. I state that I used to look after the court proceedings all along. I state that I am aged 73 years and suffering from various old age ailments and poor memory. I state that though I collected certified copies and the other record from the counsel so as to prefer an appeal before this Hon'ble Court, but due to by sickness and poor memory I have totally forgotten the said issue, however during last week of July, 2025 I come across the case record from my house and realized that I have forgotten to file the appeal. So, immediately I have taken steps to send the record for filing the Second Appeal and thus the Second Appeal is filed before the Hon'ble Court. In this regard, there is a delay of 433 days in filing the Appeal. The delay is neither willful nor deliberate but due to the reasons stated above which are beyond our control.” 7. The Respondents herein have filed Counter-Affidavit on 24.02.2026 opposing this Application for condonation of delay. It is stated in the Counter-Affidavit that the Appellants have willfully and deliberately delayed filling of the Appeal and therefore, this Court may not show any indulgence in condoning the delay. 8. This Court has perused the reasons given for condonation of delay. The reasons stated for the condonation of delay is that the Appellants were unaware of the passing of the Order by the first Appellate Court on 07.03.2024. It is also stated that the Appellant No.2, who is aged about 73 years, is suffering from various old age ailments and loss of memory. It is also stated that the said Appellant No.2 has totally forgotten about the pendency of the matter and during the last week of July-2025, the Appellant No.2 has got knowledge about the case only from the record in his house and realized that 5 he has forgotten to file Appeal. The Appellants have not justified these averments by placing on record any material indicating either the ill health or the loss of memory. 9. Although, the explanation for condonation of delay is required to be given for each and every day, in a case of this nature, where delay is 433 days, the Appellants are required to place on record at least cogent material to convince the Court that the reasons stated for the condonation of delay are supported by documentary evidence. In the present case, the appellants have not placed on record any material whatsoever, as indicated above, either with regard to any ailments that the Appellant No.2 is suffering from and any treatment is taken for the loss of memory. In this view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to entertain this Application for condonation of delay inasmuch as the said Interlocutory Application for condonation of delay is bereft of any merit. 10. Accordingly, I.A.No.01 of 2025 is dismissed as being devoid of any merit. Consequently, the Second Appeal is also dismissed. No order as to costs. 11. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. _________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 17.03.2026 Mnr 6 248 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD SECOND APPEAL NO: 608 OF 2025 Dt: 17.03.2026 Mnr