HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATHI
MAIN CASE No.: S.A.No.1255 of 2017
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl. OFFICE
No DATE ORDER NOTE
13 01.12.2022 Dr.VRKS,J
I.A.No.01/2017(SAMP 2554/2017)
Learned counsel for petitioners and learned
counsel for Respondent are in attendance.
Counter affidavit filed by Respondent is also on record. Defendants in the suit are the petitioners herein. They intended to file the Second Appeal and in the process, there occurred 2004 days of delay. It is to condone that delay, this application is filed.
Learned counsel on both sides submitted arguments.
The petition is supported by affidavit sworn in by Sri Kuna Papa Rao who is arrayed as defendant No.2 in the Original suit. The Judgment of the Trial Court indicates that Sri Kuna Papa Rao did not contest the suit and was set exparte. Subsequently, when the matter was carried to first Appellate Court in A.S.No.56 of 2008, the same was heard and was disposed of and the Judgment of the first Appeal also show that Sri Kuna Papa Rao did not contest in the Appeal and was set exparte. Thus, in both the Courts below Sri Kuna Papa Rao did not raise Contd., Contn.,
any objections. Now affidavit is sworn in by that individual stating that he has been looking after the litigation and he was employed in Indian Army and because of that, he could not really take the information concerning disposal of the case by the first Appellate Court.
In the affidavit, it is mentioned that his counsel Sri V.N.Panthulu also died in the year 2011 and that was one major hurdle in gaining relevant information. As one could see from both the Judgments of the Courts below, the name of learned counsel by name Sri V.N.Panthulu does not find any mention.
Judgment of the first Appellant Court was on 18-01-2012. The affidavit is silent as to when the petitioners instructed their Advocate to obtain the certified copies of the Judgment and decree. However, the affidavit shows that they were obtained four years after the Judgment and precisely on 18-01-2016. The delay of those years is not explained in any tangible terms. Further the affidavit shows that subsequent to the Judgment of the first Appellate Court, these petitioners put efforts to have the mater settled but the same failed and therefore, they choose to file the Second Appeal. Who are those elders, when those mediations took place are all silent.
Contd., Contn.,
Thus, except giving out bald statements, the affidavit does not indicate any explanation about the cause of delay. The petition having been filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act, though the Courts are always liberal to condone the delays, the mandate of the law cannot be over-looked that the parties are obliged to indicate the cause which must appear reasonable and satisfactory to Judicial mind. Since the petitioners failed to disclose any satisfactory cause, no case is made out to condone this large number of 2004 days delay.
In the result, this petition is dismissed.
___________ Dr.VRKS,J
GRL
