Telangana High Court
T. Aparna vs T. Kamala on 1 May, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
IA.No.1 of 2024
In/and
SECOND APPEAL No.236 of 2024
COMMON ORDER:
This application is filed seeking to condone the delay of 676 days in filing the Second Appeal against the judgment and decree, dated 10.03.2022, passed by the XIII Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar in AS.No.137 of 2018.
2. Heard Sri L.Harish, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Bethi Venkateshwarlu, learned counsel for the respondents.
3. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, the petitioners averred that pursuant to the preliminary decree dated 28.06.2017 passed in OS.No.929 of 2007, they are entitled to 1/4th share in the suit A, B, C1, C2 and D schedule properties; that they filed IA.No.4 of 2018 for passing final decree and simultaneously, they filed IA.No.5 of 2018 for appointment of Advocate- Commissioner, which was allowed and the Advocate- Commissioner visited the suit schedule properties after intimating the date and time of inspection to both the parties, but the respondents/defendants did not choose to turn up; and at that juncture, the respondents filed AS.No.137 of 2018 on the file of 2 LNA, J IA.No.1 of 2024 in S.A.No.236 of 2024 XIII Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar and the said Court granted interim stay till the disposal of the said appeal; that ultimately, the said Appeal was partly allowed only to the extent of C2 schedule property. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred the present Appeal along with an application for condonation of delay of 676 days in filing the Appeal.
4. The reasons put forth by petitioner No.1 for the delay that occurred in filing the appeal are that she went to USA to visit her daughter and thereafter, she was busy in performing the marriage of her daughter and later, she suffered from ill-health and as such, she could not contact the counsel and give instructions to file Second Appeal in time and hence, prayed the Court to condone the delay in filing the Second Appeal.
5. Respondent No.2 filed counter inter alia denying the reasons put forth by petitioner No.1 for the delay in filing the Second Appeal and further, submitted that in fact, the marriage of petitioner No.1's daughter was performed on 28.11.2021, i.e., prior to date of passing of judgment in AS.No.137 of 2018 on 10.03.2022; that after passing of the said judgment, the petitioners 3 LNA, J IA.No.1 of 2024 in S.A.No.236 of 2024 have also paid Advocate-Commissioner's fee of Rs.15,000/- in the month of January, 2024 and are actively participating in the final decree proceedings and in such a case, the case of petitioner No.1 that as she was suffering with ill-health, she could not contact the counsel and instruct him to file Second Appeal in time and hence, the delay occurred cannot be believed and accordingly, averred that the application is liable to be dismissed.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner No.1 is a widow and she was looking after the welfare of the family and and also pursuing AS.No.137 of 2018 before the first Appellate Court, however, as she was busy in performing the marriage of her daughter and later suffered with ill-health, she was unable to give instructions to the counsel in time to file Second Appeal and for the aforesaid reasons, the delay occurred in filing the Second Appeal which is neither willful nor wanton on the part of the petitioners and hence, prayed to condone the delay.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents submitted that though petitioner No.1 claimed that she suffered with ill-health and she visited her daughter's place at USA, she failed to produce any 4 LNA, J IA.No.1 of 2024 in S.A.No.236 of 2024 material in proof of the same. He further submitted that even the marriage of petitioner No.1's daughter was performed prior to passing of judgment in AS.No.137 of 2018, which is under appeal in the present Appeal, and therefore, the reasons put forth by petitioner No.1 in the application are false and baseless and hence, the application is liable to be dismissed.
8. This Court perused the entire material available on record. The averment of the respondents in the counter that the marriage of petitioner No.1's daughter was performed on 28.11.2021 i.e., prior to passing of the impugned judgment was not denied by plaintiff No.1. Further, petitioner No.1 has not produced any medical certificate or records to substantiate her stand that she suffered with ill-health. That apart, petitioner No.1 herself admitted that final decree proceedings are being pursued by her counsel. Petitioner No.1 also did not produce any material with regard to her travel to USA to visit her daughter. In the light of the aforesaid facts, the reasons put forth by petitioner No.1 for condoning the delay in filing the present Appeal cannot be believed and it appears that she approached this Court with unclean hands and failed to place any 5 LNA, J IA.No.1 of 2024 in S.A.No.236 of 2024 material in support of her contention. Hence, she is not entitled to indulgence of this Court.
9. For the foregoing reasons, the application is devoid of any merits and is liable to be dismissed.
10. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. Consequently, the Second Appeal stands dismissed.
11. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. No costs.
__________________________________ JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY Date:01.05.2025 dr