Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Kanamarlapudi Venkata Subbarao vs Kolla Punnarao on 27 August, 2024
Author: Ninala Jayasurya
Bench: Ninala Jayasurya
1
APHC010371512019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3494]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
AND
THE HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE
SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM
IA 1 OF 2023
IN
APPEAL SUIT No: 740/2019
Between:
Kanamarlapudi Venkata Subbarao & Others ...APPELLANTS
AND
Kolla Punnarao ...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Appellant(S):
1. SRINIVASA RAO NARRA
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. A RAJENDRA BABU
The Court made the following Order:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard learned counsel
for the respondent.
2. The petitioners herein are the appellants in the above Appeal. The
respondent / plaintiff filed O.S.No.9 of 2012
2012 on the file of the Court of XIII
Additional District Judge, Narasaraopet against them seeking Specific
Performance of Agreement of Sale dated 26.12.2007 on deposit of balance
sale consideration, alternatively for refund of Rs.30,70,800/- with interest @
18% p.a. On contest, the suit is decreed by Judgment dated 14.08.2019.
3. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners / appellants / defendants filed
the above Appeal along with I.A.No.1 of 2019 seeking suspension of the said
Judgment and Decree. A Division Bench of this Court on 27.11.2019 passed
the following interim order:
"There shall be interim suspension of the decree and judgment
dated 14.08.2019 passed in O.S.No.9 of 2012 on the file of the Court of
XIII Additional District Judge, Narasaraopet, Guntur District subject to the
condition that the petitioners deposit the entire costs of the suit, within a
period of four weeks from today, in default, the suspension granted shall
stand vacated without further reference to this Court."
Seeking extension of the interim order referred to above, the present
application is filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners referring to the averments made in
the affidavit filed in support of the extension petition and the additional
documents inter alia submits that due to ill-health of one of the petitioners, the
Order dated 27.11.2019 could not be complied within the stipulated time. He
also submits that thereafter in view of the Covid Pandemic and the health
problems caused by it, further delay occurred but somehow the petitioners
managed to deposit entire suit costs of Rs.1,67,678/- in the Trial Court. He
submits that the delay in depositing / complying with the Order dated
27.11.2019 is neither willful nor wanton and as the suit costs were already
deposited, the interim order dated 27.11.2019 may be extended as prayed for.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, while
opposing the said submission argued that as is evident from the interim order
dated 27.11.2019, it is a conditional order, wherein it is provided that in the
event of default in depositing the entire costs within a period of four (4) weeks
from the said order, the interim suspension granted by the Court shall stand
vacated without reference to the Court. He submits that in view of non-
compliance with the interim order, the same stood vacated automatically on
25.12.2019. He further contends that if the petitioners were not in a position to
comply with the conditional order, they should have filed an appropriate
application before expiry of the four (4) weeks stipulated by the Hon'ble Court
and the filing of the present application after a long lapse of about 3 and ½
years itself shows that the petitioners are not diligent in pursuing the matter.
He also submits that the reasons sought to be projected that due to Covid
Pandemic, the petitioners could not comply with the conditional interim order,
merits no appreciation in as much as the outbreak of Covid was in the month
of March, 2020, whereas the interim order was granted in the month of
November, 2019. He submits that even the date on which the costs of
Rs.1,67,678/- have been deposited was also not stated in the affidavit filed by
the petitioners and such a deposit without permission of this Court would be of
no consequence. Be that as it may. The learned counsel submits that the
petitioners are not diligent in complying with the conditional order of this Court
and in such circumstances, they are not entitled for extension of the interim
order as sought for.
6. This Court has considered the submissions made. It is not in dispute
that the interim order dated 27.11.2019 contains a default clause. In view of
the same, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent, the
petitioners should have moved an appropriate application seeking relaxation
of the condition imposed by the Court. Admittedly, no such efforts were made
for the reasons best known to the petitioners. Even, if one of the petitioners
(1st petitioner) is having some health problems, nothing prevented the other
petitioners to take appropriate steps, either for complying with the conditional
interim order or modification of the same, if for certain reasons, they are not in
a position to comply with it. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners
sought to impress upon this Court that the delay was in view of Covid
Pandemic, that cannot be a plausible reason for not complying with the interim
order, which was granted about four months prior to the outbreak of Covid
Pandemic. Even a perusal of the additional documents i.e., some Medical
Test reports etc., pertaining only to the 1st petitioner would not justify the delay
in complying with the conditional order dated 27.11.2019 with a default clause.
7. In the aforesaid view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to grant the
relief as prayed for, more particularly as the petitioners were indolent, not
diligent in taking steps to deposit the costs as per the directions dated
27.11.2019 within the stipulated time and the default order worked itself out on
failure to comply with the condition imposed by the Court.
8. For the aforegoing reasons, I.A.No.1 of 2023 is dismissed. No order as
to costs.
____________________
NINALA JAYASURYA, J
____________________
SUMATHI JAGADAM, J
Date 27.08.2024
BLV
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
AND
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM
IA 1 OF 2023
IN
APPEAL SUIT No: 740/2019
Date: 27.08.2024
BLV
