Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Immala Nookaratnama vs Maddipatla Rama Rao on 5 May, 2022
1
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
AND
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G. RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD
APPEAL SUIT No.38 of 2022
Between:
1. Immala Nookaratnama, W/o.Ammiraju,
Aged 60 years, R/o.Mallayyapeta, Behind Industry Colony,
Rajahmundry.
2. Reddy Dhanalakshmi,
W/o. late Narasimhamurthy @ Krupa Dhanam,
Aged about 55 years, R/o. Mallayapeta,
Rajahmundry.
.... Appellants/Plaintiffs
AND
1. Maddipatla Rama Rao, S/o. Surya Rao, Hindu, aged 75 years,
R/o. Mallayyapeta, Rajahmundry (died),
2. Maddipatia Gopalarao, S/o. Suryarao, Hindu, aged 75 years,
R/o. Mallayyapeta, Rajahmundry.
3. Maddipatla Veeraju S/o. Suryarao, Hindu, 55 years,
Mallayyapeta, Rajahmundry.
4. Gunnam Prabhavathi, W/o.Krishnamurthy, Hindu,
Aged 48 years, Mallayyapeta, Rajahmundry.
5. Maddipatla Veera Venkata Satyanarayana, S/o.late Venkatarao,
Hindu, aged 47 years, Hotel Business, Mallayyapeta, Rajahmundry.
6. M. Krishna Kumari, D/o.late Venkatarao, Hindu, aged 45 years,
Mallayyapeta, Rajahmundry.
7. M. Mounika, D/o.late Suryaprakash, Hindu, aged 30 years,
Mallayyapeta, Rajahmundry.
8. Morampudi Venkata Lakshmi @ Baby,
W/o.Venkateswararao, Hindu, aged 32 years, 1 street,
Durya nagar, Mallayyapeta, Rajahmundry.
9. Maddipatia China Ammaji W/o. Dhanaraju @ Rajababu,
Hindu, aged 60 years, Mallayyapeta, Rajahmundry.
10. Nunna Venkata Lakshmi @ Babu W/o.Subbarao, Hindu,
Aged 35 years, Mirthipadu, Rajahmundry.
11. Rachuri Krishnaveni W/o. Venkateswararao,
Hindu, aged 33 years, R/o.Railway station, Oppo.to
Marellammka temple street, Anaparthi.
2
12. Maddipatia Nagamani, D/o.late Venkata Giri,
Hindu, aged 45 years, R/o. Mallayyapeta, Rajahmundry.
13. Maddipatia Ammaji W/o.late Ramarao, Hindu, aged 73 years,
Housewife, R/o.Dr.No.8-295, Mallayyapeta, Bask side of
Industrial Colony, Rajahmundry.
14. Maddipatla Ramakrishna, S/o.late Ramarao, Hindu, aged 56 years,
Business, Dr.No.6-511, Mallayyapeta, Rajahmundry.
15. Yellamanchi Satyaveni, W/o. Venkata Prasad, D/o.M.Ramarao,
Hindu, aged 53 years, House wife, Dr.No.8-286/2,
Mallayyapeta, Rajahmundry.
16. Pothireddi Venkata Lakshmi, W/o.Venkata Ramakrishna,
D/o. M.Ramarao, Hindu, aged 51 years, House wife,
Dr.No.8-295, Mallayyapeta, Rajahmundry.
(D13 to D16 added as L.Rs. on death of D1.)
17. Bolla Venkata Lakshmi, W/o. Venkata Srinivas Rao,
D.No.8-108, Velpuru, Tanuku Mandal.
18. Guttikonda Lakshmana Chowdary, S/o. Venkateswarlu,
D.No.3051-18, Subbaraopeta, Tadepalligudem.
19. Pothula Dora babu, S/o. Veera Swamy, D.No.5-78/A,
Murari, Gandepalli Mandal.
20. Gunnam Veerabhadra Rao, S/o. Veeraju,
D.No.3-100, Ramabhupalapatnam, Peddapuram Mandal
.... Respondents/Defendants
21. Mavireddi Krishnaveni, W/o.Trimurthulu, Hindu,
Aged 45 years, Jegurupadu, Kadiam Mandal.
.... Respondent/Plaintiff No.3
Counsel for the Appellants : Mr.A.S.C.Bose
Counsel for the respondents : Mr. Aravala Sreenivasa Rao
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date:
(Per Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.Ramakrishna Prasad)
Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the appellants in the present appeal. Plaintiffs
filed a suit for partition against 20 defendants and prayed for the following:
Sl. Schedule Nature of Property Share
No. prayed by
plaintiffs
01. A schedule Tiled house in RS No.106, Ac.0.40 cents 47 shares
Extent '160.5' Square Yards in Katheru out of 440
Village, Rajahmundry Rural shares
02. B schedule Land in RS No.97 Katheru village, 47 shares
Rajahmundry out of 449
shares
03. C schedule Ac.0.80 cents land in RS No.97 Katheru 1 share out
village, Rajahmundry of 20 shares
2. During the course of trial, plaintiffs examined P.W.1 (Plaintiff No.2)
and P.W.2 (Plaintiff No.3) and the defendants examined D.W.1 to D.W.4 out
of whom, D.W.3 was arrayed as defendant No.20. Plaintiffs marked Ex.A1
to Ex.A10 while the defendants marked Ex.B1 to Ex.B4.
3. After an elaborate trial, the learned X Additional District Judge by
order dated 06.11.2017 dismissed O.S.No.101 of 2010.
4. This judgment and decree is impugned in the present appeal.
5. The present appeal is filed along with two applications, viz. I.A.No.1
of 2022 seeking condonation of delay of 1122 days while I.A.No.2 of 2022
was filed for dispensing with filing of certified copy of the judgment and
decree impugned in the appeal. The reasoning given in the application for
condonation of delay is stated in paragraph No.4 of the affidavit filed by
the first petitioner - first appellant in support of I.A.No.2022 in A.S.No.38 of
2022. It reads:
"I submit that as I was suffering with severe depressive disorder
with Suicidal indication and I am in medical treatment till
February 2020. There after I met with my advocate Rajahmundry
in the month of March 2020 and taken the record for filing
appeal. But due to CARONA the government declared lockdown
throughout India for about 8 to 9 months. And when partially
opened, I can't able to move outside of my house due to my ill
health in this pandemic situation and I can't able to give file to
my advocate in the proper time to file an appeal in the court. In
the first week of March 2021 I contacted my advocate for filing
appeal and addressed the matter who informed me that only
Xerox copy of judgment and decree in record and asked me to
obtain certified copy of judgment decree. Since the time for
filing above appeal is already elapsed we filed the above appeal
with Xerox copy on 03.03.2021. The delay was happened due to
above said reasons but neither willful nor wanton. If the delay
was not condoned, I will suffer irreparable loss and injury.
For the reasons stated above it is humbly prayed that this
Hon'ble Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 1122 days
in filing the above appeal and pass such other order/s as this
Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of
the case."
6. In respect of application for seeking exemption from filing certified
copy of the impugned order, it is stated that the learned advocate filed
application seeking certified copy on 03.08.2018 and the copy was made
ready on 20.08.2018. It is however not stated as to when the certified copy
was received. However, a perusal of the copy of the impugned order
placed on the case file of the present appeal indicates that the copy of the
order that is filed is in fact a photo copy of the certified copy. This
indicates that the certified copy was infact obtained but the application is
silent about the circumstances under which the certified copy is not filed
but the zerox copy of the certified copy has been filed.
7. In view of the contents of the application filed by the appellants for
condonation of delay, this Court is not satisfied with the explanation given
in the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay
as the elementary principles, which are to be followed in explaining the
delay, which is sought to be condoned by a Court of law had not been
observed. This Court is of the view that delay cannot be condoned on mere
asking and the applicant, who is seeking condonation of delay should be
able to explain all reasons supported by documents to satisfy the Court that
the delay was occasioned on account of circumstances which are beyond
the control of the party.
8. In any case, the ill-health that is sought to be projected and averred
are bereft of documentary proof. Assuming for a moment that the
deponent of the application seeking condonation of delay viz., Smt. Immala
Nookaratnamma (Appellant No.1) had health issues, no explanation is
forthcoming as to why Smt.Reddy Dhanalakshmi (Appellant No.2) did not
take steps to file the present appeal within time.
9. Taking into account the above mentioned aspects, I.A.No.1 of 2022
filed by the appellants for condoning a delay of 1122 days in filing the
instant appeal is dismissed. Consequently, A.S.No.38 of 2022 is rejected.
I.A.No.2 of 2022 is also disposed of in terms of this order.
_________________________
(AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J)
_________________________
(G. RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J)
Dt:05.05.2022
Rns
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
AND
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G. RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD
A.S.No.38 OF 2022
Date:05.05.2022
Rns
