Date of reserved for orders : --- Date of pronouncement : 22.06.2026 Date of uploading : APHC010719902022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] MONDAY, THE 22nd DAY OF JUNE 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 84/2023 Between: 1. VADLAMUDI SUDHAKAR, S/O LATE NAGESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 0CC. LORRY DRIVER, R/O VADLAMUDI VILLAGE, CHEBROLE MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. VADLAMUDI DHANAMMA, W/O LATE NAGESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O GOWDAPALEM, VADLAMUDI VILLAGE, CHEBROLE MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. VADLAMUDI RAVI KUMAR,, S/O LATE NAGESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O GOWDAPALEM, VADLAMUDI VILLAGE, CHEBROLE MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT 4. VALLABHAPURAM RAJESWARI,, W/O JAYA PAUL, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O GOWDAPALEM, VADLAMUDI VILLAGE, CHEBROLE MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 5. VADLAMUDI DEVADASU, S/O LATE CHINTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/O GOWDAPALEM, VADLAMUDI VILLAGE, CHEBROLE MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 6. VADLAMUDI RAJENDRA,, S/O LATE CHINTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RIO GOWDAPALEM, VADLAMUDI VILLAGE, CHEBROLE, MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 7. VADLAMUDI MOHANRAO, S/O LATE CHINTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O GOWDAPALEM, VADLAMUDI VILLAGE, CHEBROLE, MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 8. VADLAMUDI RAJA RAO, S/O LATE CHINTAIAH, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O GOWDAPALEM, VADLAMUDI VILLAGE, CHEBROLE, MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. VADLAMUDI NAGENDRAMMA, W/O BULLA KANKAKARAJU, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/O SANGA REDDY, MEDAK DISTRICT. 2. KANTHEVARAPU VIJAYAKUMARI, W/O DEVA SAHAYAM, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, C/O UNNAM BUTCHAIAH, R/O PENUMULI VILLAGE, DUGGIRALA MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. UNNAM PARAMESWARI, W/O BUTCHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O PENUMULI VILLAGE, DUGGIRALA MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 topleased to allow the above CRP by quashing and set a siding the order and decree passed I.A.No.303 of 2022 in O.S.No. 352 of 2015 on the file of the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, dated 18-11-2022, and be pleased to pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. CHALLA AJAY KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. VENKATA DURGA RAO ANANTHA The Court made the following ORDER : Heard Sri K.M. Pavan Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri Challa Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri K. Durga Rao, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The defendants in the suit filed the above Civil Revision Petition against the order, dated 18.11.2022, passed in I. A. No. 303 of 2022 in OS No. 352 of 2015 on the file of the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their status in the suit. 4. The plaintiffs instituted the suit O.S No. 352 of 2015 seeking partition of the plaint schedule properties. The defendants, having received summons, failed to appear and participate in the suit proceedings. The trial Court set them ex parte on 14.09.2015. 5. During the trial, plaintiffs 1 and 3 were examined as PWs 1 and 3, besides examining P.W.2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A10. Page 4 of 8 6. The trial Court decreed the suit and passed a preliminary decree on 28.11.2017. 7. Thereafter, the defendants in the suit filed an application to set aside the ex parte preliminary decree. As there was a delay of 1762 days in filing the set aside petition, the defendants filed IA No. 303 of 2022 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to condone the said delay. 8. Defendant No.1 deposed to the affidavit filed in support of IA No. 303 of 2022. It was contented, inter alia, that after filing the suit, the family elders made negotiations for amicable settlement. However, the plaintiffs did not come forward and postponed the compromise proposals. Recently, the deponent and others came to know about the petition filed by the plaintiffs to pass a final decree by appointing an advocate commissioner to divide the suit schedule property by virtue of the preliminary decree. On advice, the defendants filed a petition to set aside the ex parte preliminary decree, dated 28.11.2017, and since there was a delay, I.A.No.303 of 2022 was filed seeking condonation of the delay. 9. The plaintiffs did not file any counter. 10. The trial Court, by Order dated 18.11.2022, dismissed IA No. 303 of 2022, holding that no sufficient reasons were assigned to condone the delay. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants would submit that the dispute is among the siblings of late Chintaiah and his wife Yeleshamma. Since the defendants negotiated for a compromise, they could not oppose the suit, and there is no negligence on their part. Page 5 of 8 12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that no reasons, much less sufficient reasons, were assigned to condone the delay of 1762 days and the trial Court, after considering the same, dismissed the application. 13. The points for consideration are: 1. Whether the defendants assigned sufficient reasons to condone the delay 2. Whether the Order dated 18.11.2022 passed in IA No. 303 of 2022 in OS No. 352 of 2015 on the file of IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, suffers from any illegality or irregularity warranting the interference of this court? 14. As seen from the material, the plaintiffs filed suit for partition, and the defendants were set ex parte for non-appearance on 14.09.2015. Thereafter, plaintiffs 1 and 3 were examined as PW1 and PW3, and PW2 was also examined. Exhibits A1 to A10 were marked. The trial court decreed the suit and granted a preliminary decree on 28.11.2017. 15. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition to condone 1762 days, the petitioners pleaded that the family elders had made negotiations. However, the plaintiffs did not come forward, thereby postponing the compromise proposals. 16. Thus, as seen from the averments in the affidavit, the revision petitioners/defendants are aware of the suit and its proceedings, however, failed to participate in the proceedings. The sufficient cause is a cause for which the defendant cannot be blamed for his absence. There are eight defendants in all; however, none of them participated in the suit proceedings. 17. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Majji Sannemma alias Sanyasi Rao v. Reddy Sridevi and Others1, interfered with the order passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court, whereby the Court condoned the delay of 1011 days in preferring the second appeal. The Hon’ble Apex Court considered the decisions reported in P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala2; Basawaraj v. LAO3; and Pundlik Jalam Patil v. Jalgaon Medium Project4 and eventually interfered with the jurisdiction exercised by the High Court in condoning the delay and set aside the said order. 18. In Ramachanran’s case, the Hon’ble Apex Court refused to condone the delay of 560 days, observing that in the absence of a reasonable, satisfactory or even appropriate explanation for seeking condonation of delay, the same cannot be condoned. 19. In Basawaraj’s case, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the discretion to condone the delay has to be exercised judiciously based on the facts and circumstances of each case and the expression ‘sufficient cause’ cannot be liberally interpreted if negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides is attributed to the party. 1 (2021) 18 SCC 384 2 (1997) 7 SCC 556 3 (2013) 14 SCC 81 4 (2008) 17 SCC 448 20. In the case at hand, no sufficient reasons were assigned by the petitioners to condone the delay of 1762 days. The trial Court considered all these aspects and dismissed the application. The order under revision doesn’t brook any interference. This Court does not find any merit in this revision. 21. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date : 22.06.2026 ikn THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 84 of 2023 Date : 22.06.2026 ikn