Reddy Sridevi vs Majji Sannemma
2021 Latest Caselaw 3572 AP

                                               1

                  HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: AT AMARAVATI
MAIN CASE NO.: S.A.No.331 of 2021
                                    PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl.     Date                                   ORDER                               OFFICE
No.                                                                                 NOTE
3.                 MVR,J                                                            Tr. to I-O
                                                                                      folder
      16.09.202                                                                       before
                                       I.A.No.1 of 2021                            correction
         1                                                                           s if any.
                                                                                    Pl.verify.
                    Heard Sri A.S.K.S.Bhargav, learned counsel for the

                   petitioners and Ms.Sowmya Naidu, learned counsel for

                   the respondent.

This petition is filed under Section 5 of the

Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 1011 days in

filing the second appeal.

The defendants are proposing this second appeal and

the respondent was the plaintiff.

The dispute is in respect of an undivided extent of

Ac.0.25 cents in Sy.No.423/1 of Parvatipuram Town of

Vizianagaram District.

The parties are closely related. Sri Majji Sambayya is

the father of the respondent. The petitioners are

sisters and they are daughters of one Smt.Regala

Thavudamma, who is in fact the sister of the

respondent. Alleging that the appellants were

attempting to interfere with her rightful possession and

enjoyment of the plaint schedule property, the

respondent laid the suit for permanent injunction

against the appellants. The suit was dismissed by the

trial Court. Appeal preferred there against was

allowed granting relief in favour of the respondent.

Against this reversal judgment in appeal, the

petitioners are intending to present this second appeal.

The reason assigned by the petitioners to condone

delay in presenting second appeal is that they had

financial difficulties in pursuing the matter and that

there was improper advice by their learned counsel,

who appeared in the appellate court. Another reason

assigned is that the 1st petitioner was unwell from

01.01.2017 to 15.03.2017 and therefore, she could not

pursue the matter.

Basing on these circumstances, learned counsel for

the petitioners contended that since there are

substantial issues for consideration and determination

in this second appeal and since this dispute involved

valuable property, in order to give fair opportunity to

the petitioners, delay be condoned. Learned counsel

for the petitioners stated that all these reasons made

out sufficient cause as well as due diligence on their

part in pursuing the matter and that this attempt did

not lack bonafides.

On behalf of the respondent, a serious objection is

taken, pointing out that no reason is shown by the

petitioners why this appeal could not be presented

after 15.03.2017, where after the 1st petitioner

apparently came out of her ill health. Questioning the

claim of the petitioners of their financial difficulties

and pointing out that the delay is willful, reflecting of

want of bonafides on the part of the petitioners, it is

contended for the respondent that this inordinate delay

may not be condoned. It is further contended for the

respondent that on account of inaction of the

petitioners, certain rights stood accrued to her, cannot

be put to rest in this manner by the petitioners.

Now, the point for determination is "whether the

petitioners have made out sufficient cause to explain

the delay in presenting the second appeal and if the

reasons assigned by them suffer from lack of

bonafides"?

The close relationship among the parties in peculiar

circumstances of the case stands for consideration. All

the three petitioners are stated to be house wives, who

are all dependent on their respective husbands

concerning every aspect. The property involved is also

valuable urban property.

In these circumstances, when there are certain

questions, which require a debate in the second

appeal, it is not necessary that this matter be rejected

at this stage, without inviting a decision on merits. If

the delay is condoned though enormous, what happens

at best is to give an opportunity to the parties to

canvass their respective case. Since this question being

of procedure, the attempt of the court should be to

encourage a healthy discussion on merits than rejecting

at threshold.

Viewed from such perspective, accepting the

reasons assigned by the petitioner, the delay in

presenting this second appeal should be condoned.

Apparently, there is no wilful negligence on the part

of the petitioners nor this attempt suffers from want of

due diligence. It appears being a bonafide attempt on

the part of the petitioners to canvass their claim

particularly when the trial court had accepted their

plea, which was subjected to reversal by the appellate

court. However, the petitioners should compensate

the respondent by means of costs for this delay. The

contention of the respondent that valuable rights are

accrued to her on account of inaction of the petitioners

in failing to prefer the second appeal within time,

cannot be a significant factor in the backdrop of the

circumstances found in this case.

In the result, this petition is allowed condoning the

delay of 1011 days in filing the second appeal subject

to payment of costs of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two

thousand only) to the learned counsel for the

respondent on or before 05.10.2021.

For compliance of this order, list on 06.10.2021.

______ MVR,J Pab