Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Dr.B.Ashok Kumar vs N.P.Murali Krishna on 21 August, 2024
Author: Ninala Jayasurya
Bench: Ninala Jayasurya
1
APHC010210852018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3494]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
AND
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM
IA 1 OF 2018
IN / AND
FIRST APPEAL No: 845/2018
Between:
Dr.B.Ashok Kumar ...PETITIONER/
APPELLANT
AND
N P Murali Krishna ...RESPONDENT
/ PLAINTIFF
Counsel for the Appellant:
Mr. K.VENKATESH
Counsel for the Respondent:
-None-
The Court made the following Order:
The petitioner / appellant is defendant in O.S.No.24 of 2010 on the file
of the Court of District Judge, Chittoor. The respondent / plaintiff filed the said
suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.25,78,002/
Rs.25,78,002/- being the principal and
interest on the strength of the Pronotes stated to have been executed by the
petitioner and the
he suit was decreed by Judgment dated 03.08.2013. Aggrieved
by the same, the petitioner filed the above Appeal on 19.03.2018.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner / appellant referring to the
averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the above mentioned I.A.,
inter alia submits that the petitioner / appellant due to prolonged illness could
not file the Appeal within the period of limitation and a delay of 1591 days
occurred in filing the Appeal. He submits that the delay in fling the Appeal is
neither willful nor wanton but due to health condition of the petitioner, that the
petitioner has fair chances of success in the Appeal and unless the delay is
condoned, the petitioner will suffer serious prejudice, great hardship and
irreparable loss.
3. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the
affidavit filed in support of the petition to condone the delay in filing the
Appeal. As seen from the said affidavit, it would appear that the petitioner was
suffering with Coronary Artery Triple Vessel Disease, Hypertension, Ischemic
Heart disease and advised to undergo Coronary Angiogram by the Doctors at
Hyderabad as well as Rajahmundry. It is also stated that the petitioner is
suffering with Sciatica with L5 S1 disc for the last several years. Except
making the said averments, no details with reference to the specific dates on
which the petitioner had undergone any surgery etc., were divulged. No
supporting material in respect of the treatment undergone by the petitioner,
Discharge Summary etc., are filed along with the affidavit. Though the learned
counsel for the petitioner sought to impress upon this Court that the petitioner
is suffering with prolonged illness and due to the said reason, the Appeal
could not be filed within the statutory period, in the absence of any material /
record to substantiate the reasons as sought to be projected by the petitioner
for condoning the huge delay of more than 4 and ½ years (1591 days) cannot
simply be condoned. It would appear that the petitioner was not prudent and
he has to suffer the consequences of his indolence.
4. In the aforesaid view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to condone
the delay of 1591 days and the Delay Petition is accordingly dismissed.
5. As a consequence of dismissal of the petition to condone the delay, the
Appeal also stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Consequently,
miscellaneous petitions pending, if any in the Appeal, shall stand closed.
____________________
NINALA JAYASURYA, J
____________________
SUMATHI JAGADAM, J
Date 21.08.2024
BLV
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
AND
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM
IA 1 OF 2018
IN / AND
FIRST APPEAL No: 845/2018
Date: 21.08.2024
BLV
