APHC010448432025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3209] FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2256/2025 Between: 1. CHALLA JYOTHI,, W/O CHALLA BHASKAR RAO @ BHASKAR MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE R/O D.NO. 122/A, APPALAYAGUNTA VILLAGE, VADAMALAPETA MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. GANGURI HEMADRI, S/o Ragavaiah, Aged about 55 years, Occ Cultivation, R/o Appalayagunta Village and Post, Vadamalapeta Mandal, Chittoor District. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T D PANI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent: 1. T V JAGGI REDDY NJS,J C.R.P No.2256 of 2025 2 The Court made the following Order: Heard Smt. T Radha Rani, learned counsel representing the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K Satyanand, learned counsel representing the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The present revision petition is filed, aggrieved by the order dated 29.03.2025 in I.A No.812 of 2024 in O.S No.74 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Puttur, Puttur District. 3. The petitioner, who is the defendant in O.S No.74 of 2015, filed the said I.A under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 2436 days (about six years and six months) in seeking to set aside the ex-parte decree dated 24.04.2017. The respondent/plaintiff filed the said suit seeking specific purpose of an Agreement of Sale alleged to have been executed by the petitioner herein. The respondent/plaintiff seeking execution of the decree, filed E.P No.48 of 2021 and the petitioner/defendant remained ex-parte in the said proceedings and thereby, a registered sale deed was executed by the Court. 4. In the affidavit filed in support of the said I.A., the petitioner inter alia pleaded that she and her family members left the village in the year 2014, resided at Chittoor in her parents’ house for some time and shifted her family to the village recently and as such, she is not aware of the proceedings in the suit. It is also stated that the respondent/plaintiff, in collusion with the petitioner’s husband, had fraudulently created the agreement of sale, forged her signature and filed the suit. Further that, she never received any legal notice prior to filing of the case. The said application was resisted by the respondent/plaintiff by filing a detailed counter, denying the various pleas taken by the petitioner. NJS,J C.R.P No.2256 of 2025 3 5. The learned Trial Court after considering the matter by a common order dated 29.03.2025 in I.A Nos.812 and 813 of 2024, dismissed the said petitions. 6. It appears that the petitioner choose to file the present revision only against the order passed in I.A No.812 of 2024. Be that as it may. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions to the effect that the order under revision is liable to be interfered with, as the learned Trial Court erred in not exercising the jurisdiction vested in it in the correct perspective. She submits that in the light of the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the I.A. in question, the learned Trial Court ought to have condoned the delay of 2436 days, and afford an opportunity to the petitioner/defendant to contest the matter on merits, more particularly as it is the case of the petitioner that the judgment and decree was obtained by the respondent/plaintiff in collusion with the petitioner’s husband. The learned counsel, making the said submissions and relying on the decision in Mool Chandra vs. Union of India & another reported in 2024 INSC 577, seeks to allow the revision petition by setting aside the order under challenge. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent made submissions to sustain the order under challenge. Referring to the various averments in the counter-affidavit filed in the I.A. in question, he submits that, the learned Trial Court appreciated the matter by taking relevant aspects into consideration and untenable stand taken by the petitioner/defendant about the service of suit notice, etc., rightly dismissed the petitions by giving cogent reasons. Under the said circumstances, he submits that no interference is called for by this Court, more particularly, as the order under revision does not suffer from illegality or perversity. He also places reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Surendra Kumar Jain vs. Santobai and another reported in 2025 INSC 230 and Basawaraj & others vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer reported in (2013) 14 SCC 81. NJS,J C.R.P No.2256 of 2025 4 9. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record. 10. On an appreciation of the rival contentions, the only point that arises for consideration of this Court is “Whether the order under revision is liable to the interfered with, in the facts and circumstances of the case?” 11. As per the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the affidavit filed in support of the I.A. in question, the stand taken by the petitioner/defendant to set aside the ex-parte decree dated 24.04.2017 and the delay in filing the application seeking to set aside the decree is that she is not residing in the address which is mentioned in the cause-title of the suit i.e., Door No.122/A, Appalayagunta Village, Vadamalapeta Mandal, Chittoor District. While stating that she is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule mentioned property, in the affidavit she took a plea that she left the village for some time, resided at Chittoor and thereafter, came back to the village. 12. At this juncture, it may be relevant to mention that against the petitioner/defendant, a third party filed a suit vide O.S No.27 of 2023, arraying the petitioner as defendant. In the said suit, her address was shown as resident of Door No.122/A, Appalayagunta Village, Vadamalapeta Mandal, Chittoor District. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said suit was dismissed and appeal is preferred against the said judgment and decree is pending. Be that as it may. 13. The learned Trial Court, after considering these aspects at Para-9 of the order by assigning cogent reasons, rejected the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner/defendant. 14. The learned Trial Judge has also taken note of the fact that the petitioner/defendant had refused to take notice in E.P No.48 of 2021, which is sent to the same address as mentioned in O.S No.27 of 2023. Ultimately, the NJS,J C.R.P No.2256 of 2025 5 learned Judge was not inclined to condone the delay of 2436 days, as the same is inordinate and further that the petitioner failed to prove any sufficient cause or reasons to condone the said delay. 15. In Mool Chandra case referred to supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the orders passed by the High Court of Delhi affirming the dismissal order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in an application seeking condonation of delay, while allowing the appeal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, inter alia upheld as follows: “20. … No litigant stands of benefit in approaching the courts belatedly. It is not the length of delay that would be required to be considered while examining the plea for condonation of delay, it is the cause for delay which has been propounded will have to be examined. If the cause for delay would fall within four corners of “sufficient cause”, irrespective of the length of delay same deserves to be condoned. However, if the cause shown is insufficient, irrespective of the period of delay, same would not be condoned.” 16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Surendra Kumar Jain referred to supra, dealt with an order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Gwalior Bench) condoning the delay of 2422 days in seeking restoration of the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court. 17. In Basawaraj case, there was a delay of 5 ½ years in preferring the appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act. The applications for condonation of delay were rejected by the High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court confirmed the order of the High Court. In Para No.11, it was opined as follows: “11. The expression “sufficient cause” should be given a liberal interpretation to ensure that substantial justice is done, but only so long as negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides cannot be imputed to the party concerned, whether or not sufficient NJS,J C.R.P No.2256 of 2025 6 cause has been furnished, can be decided on the facts of a particular case and no straitjacket formula is possible…” 18. However, in the case on hand, the petitioner/defendant failed to establish the sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The petitioner as observed by the learned Trial Court refused notice in E.P No.48 of 2021. She filed the application in question in the year 2023, which indicates negligence and lack of bonafides. Therefore, this Court see no reason to take a different view as that of the learned Trial Court. 19. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Date:06.02.2026 Ksj