APHC010430272026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2304 of 2026 Bench Sr.No:- 66 [3299] Gowdadri Chandra Kumari ...Petitioner Vs. Gowdadri Venkata Rajesh and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** CORAM : SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI DATE : 17th August 2026 Present : Advocate for Petitioner: HABIBULLA SHAIK Advocate for Respondent: JUDGMENT: Heard Sri Habibulla Shaik, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.1 of 2023 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jaggaiahpet. The suit was decreed ex parte on 18.05.2023. The defendants (respondents No.1 & 2 herein) filed application to set aside the ex parte decree under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC along with an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Both the applications were rejected by Order dated 31.10.2023. Challenging the Order dated 31.10.2023 rejecting the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act, CRP No.2954 of 2023 was filed before this Court, whereas challenging the same order of rejection of application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, CMA No.4 of 2026 RNT, J CRP No.2304 of 2026 2 was filed before the Court of the XVI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Krishna at Nandigama. CRP No.2954 of 2023 was dismissed by this Court by Order dated 26.12.2025, on the ground that the petitioner had the remedy of filing appeal against the said Order as well, in view of the common judgment dated 31.03.2023 in CRP (SR) No.42495 of 2022 and CRP No.2036 of 2022, in which it was held placing reliance in the case of Shaik Abdul Haq v. Aiswarya Nilaya Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd. {2005 (3) ALD 513}, that civil revision petition was not maintainable. However, the defendants, (respondents No.1 & 2 herein, and the petitioners in CRP.No.2954 of 2023) were granted liberty to prefer appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (d) CPC against the Order dated 31.10.2023. 3. Thereafter, the respondents No.1 & 2 filed CMA No.4 of 2026. As there was delay of 780 days in filing the appeal, I.A.No.112 of 2026 was filed in the said CMA for condonation of delay. The learned XVI Additional District Judge framed the following point for consideration: “Now the point stood for consideration is, whether the petitioners- defendants is entitled to condone the delay of 780 days as prayed for?” After hearing the learned counsel for both the sides, the learned XVI Additional District Judge has allowed the application and condoned the delay finding the cause to be sufficient, by Order dated 26.03.2026. 4. Challenging the said Order dated 26.03.2026, the present civil revision petition has been filed by the plaintiff. RNT, J CRP No.2304 of 2026 3 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay in filing appeal against the Order dated 31.03.2023, rejecting the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and pursuant to the Order passed in the previous CRP No.2954 of 2023, the respondent/plaintiff did not disclose about filing of the CRP No.2954 of 2023, as also its dismissal, and consequently, there was no sufficient cause to condone the delay, and the learned Court has not considered Section 14 of the Limitation Act and so, the Court had in fact not granted the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. So, the delay could not be condoned. 6. I have considered the aforesaid submissions and perused the material on record. 7. From perusal of the impugned Order, the facts are not in dispute. A specific query was made to the learned counsel for the petitioner, if the civil revision petition against the Order of rejection of application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed in time? And the appeal against the Order of rejection of application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was also filed in time?, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both were filed within the period of limitation. 8. This Court while dismissing the revision petition, granted liberty to prefer the appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (d) CPC. The appeal was filed RNT, J CRP No.2304 of 2026 4 before the learned XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishna at Nandigama. 9. Section 14 of the Limitation Act reads as under: “Section 14: Exclusion of time of proceeding bona fide in court without jurisdiction. (1) In computing the period of limitation for any suit the time during which the plaintiff has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding, whether in a court of first instance or of appeal or revision, against the defendant shall be excluded, where the proceeding relates to the same matter in issue and is prosecuted in good faith in a court which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it. (2) In computing the period of limitation for any application, the time during which the applicant has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding, whether in a court of first instance or of appeal or revision, against the same party for the same relief shall be excluded, where such proceeding is prosecuted in good faith in a court which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in rule 2 of Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), the provisions of sub-section (1) shall apply in relation to a fresh suit instituted on permission granted by the court under rule 1 of that Order, where such permission is granted on the ground that the first suit must fail by reason of a defect in the jurisdiction of the court or other cause of a like nature. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— (a) in excluding the time during which a former civil proceeding was pending, the day on which that proceeding was instituted and the day on which it ended shall both be counted; (b) a plaintiff or an applicant resisting an appeal shall be deemed to be prosecuting a proceeding; (c) misjoinder of parties or of causes of action shall be deemed to be a cause of a like nature with defect of jurisdiction.” RNT, J CRP No.2304 of 2026 5 10. This Court is satisfied that the respondents No.1 & 2 were litigating bona fidely in CRP No.2954 of 2023 before this Court. They had already filed CMA before the XVI Additional District Judge, Nandigama against the Order of dismissal of application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. The CRP filed against the dismissal of the application under Section 5 Limitation Act, was dismissed, observing that in view of the provisions of Order 43 Rule 1 (d) CPC, the civil revision petition would not be maintainable and liberty was granted to the respondents 1 & 2 to prefer appeal. They could have also filed the appeal against the Order of rejection of application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. They preferred CRP No.2954 of 2023 might be not considering the correct legal position. The period thus spent in prosecuting the civil revision petition was certainly liable to be excluded, under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. Even if Section 14 of the Limitation Act was not considered in the Order under challenge, but keeping the principles thereunder and considering the cause, the delay was considered by the appellate court. That Order has been passed on the consideration of the well settled law, by placing reliance on various judgments, in which it has been held that expression ‘sufficient cause’ is to be construed liberally so as to advance substantial justice, when the delay is not deliberate. This Court does not find any illegality so as to interfere with the impugned Order. RNT, J CRP No.2304 of 2026 6 11. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in consequence. ____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J Date: 17.08.2026 Dsr Whether the order is: Speaking ‘Yes’ Non-Reportable ‘Yes’