Date of reserved for orders : Date of pronouncement : 24.06.2026 Date of uploading : 29.06.2026 APHC010556632017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] WEDNESDAY, THE 24th DAY OF JUNE 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 4150/2017 Between: 1. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,, CONSTITUTED UNDER THE LIC ACT, 1956 O/O. BRANCHES ALL OVER INDIAN AND IN DIVISIONAL OFFICE AT VISAKHAPATNAM REP., BY ITS SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER ...PETITIONER AND 1. SRI KANCHIPATI JAGANNADHA RAO, S/o. Ramunaidu, Cultivation, R/o. Ravikamatham Village and Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. ...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased to IA NO: 1 OF 2013(CRPMP 4847 OF 2013 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 to condone the delay of 290 days in filing the above CRP IA NO: 4 OF 2013(CRPMP 20708 OF 2013 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 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Y MAHA LAKSHMI Counsel for the Respondent: 1. K B RAMANNA DORA The Court made the following: NV,J W.P.No.4150 of 2017 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4150 OF 2017 ORDER: 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 23.04.2012 passed by the Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam, in I.A. No.2971 of 2011 in unnumbered A.S. No.___ of 2011. 2. Ms. Y. Mahalakshmi, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner, a public body, filed a suit for recovery of Rs.1,14,986/- from the respondent towards a housing loan. The suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 27.11.2011. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal with a delay of 234 days and filed I.A. No.2971 of 2011 seeking condonation of the said delay. The Court below, after considering the explanation offered by the petitioner, found that the reasons assigned did not constitute sufficient cause for condoning such an inordinate delay and accordingly dismissed the application. 3. A reading of the impugned order shows that there was a delay of nearly eight months in filing the appeal. The explanation offered by the petitioner was that the certified copy of the judgment and decree was NV,J W.P.No.4150 of 2017 3 misplaced in its office and that the appeal was presented after the copy was traced. The Court below did not accept the said explanation. It held that the reasons assigned were neither satisfactory nor convincing and that they clearly reflected a lack of diligence in pursuing the matter. 4. The record further discloses that even after dismissal of the application for condonation of delay on 03.04.2012, the present revision petition itself was filed with a further delay of 290 days in the year 2013. Though the said delay was condoned on 10.08.2017 and the revision petition was thereafter numbered, the fact remains that the original suit came to be dismissed as early as in the year 2011. Thus, there has been substantial delay at every stage, either in filing the appeal or in prosecuting the present revision. Consequently, nearly one and a half decades have elapsed since the dismissal of the suit. By passage of such a long period, the rights of the parties have attained finality, and this Court cannot unsettle issues which have been settled long back. 5. It is well settled that while applications for condonation of delay are to be considered with a liberal approach, the applicant must nevertheless establish sufficient cause for not approaching the Court within the NV,J W.P.No.4150 of 2017 4 prescribed period. Liberal consideration cannot be extended to cases where the explanation is vague, unsupported by material, or indicative of negligence. Though every day's delay need not be explained, the explanation as a whole must be bona fide. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has not deliberately neglected the proceedings and that, being a public body, certain administrative delays are unavoidable. This Court is unable to accept the said submission. The explanation that the certified copy was misplaced in the office, without any supporting material or particulars, cannot by itself constitute sufficient cause. More importantly, the petitioner has failed to explain the repeated delays at every subsequent stage of the proceedings. 7. The conduct of the petitioner, viewed as a whole, does not disclose due diligence in prosecuting the matter. The Court below exercised its discretion after considering the facts and found that no sufficient cause was made out for condoning the delay. This Court finds no perversity, illegality, or jurisdictional error in the exercise of such discretion warranting interference under the revisional jurisdiction. NV,J W.P.No.4150 of 2017 5 8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA Date:24.06.2026 SP Whether the order is: Speaking Yes Reasoned No Reportable No Non-reportable Yes