Yamala Valluri Anjani Ratnamamba vs The Rdo.,Guntur
2024 Latest Caselaw 4693 AP

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Yamala Valluri Anjani Ratnamamba vs The Rdo.,Guntur on 24 June, 2024

APHC010207882011
                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
                                           PRADESH
                                                                     [3460]
                                        AT AMARAVATI
                                 (Special Original Jurisdiction)

              MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE
                 TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
                                   PRESENT
            THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
               CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 43/2011
Between:
Yamala @ Valluri Anjani Ratnamamba                            ...APPELLANT

                                        AND

The Rdo Guntur                                              ...RESPONDENT

Counsel for the Appellant:

     1. SUBBA RAO KORRAPATI

Counsel for the Respondent:

     1.

The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT:

1. The present C.M.A is filed against the interlocutory order dated 20.12.2001 in I.A.No.3108 of 1997 in O.P.No.80 of 1987 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, seeking enhancement of compensation under Land Acquisition Act, 1984. The petitioner was brought on record pursuant to the death of his father in the said O.P. The O.P was dismissed for default on 01.11.1999 for non-prosecution and the present I.A was filed seeking to set aside the default order in application to condone the delay of 173 days. The trial Court vide impunged order dismissed the said application. Hence, the C.M.A is filed.

2. Heard Mr.Sohith Chandra, proxy counsel for Sri Subba Rao Korrapati, learned counsel for the appellant.

3. The O.P was dismissed for default on 01.11.1999. The reasoning given by the appellant to condone the delay is not in consonance with Section 5 of Limitation Act, more so, when he was shown as party to the said O.P. No acceptable explanation was forthcoming as to why the petitioner did not choose to contest the case at the relevant point of time.

4. Apart from that, at this length of time i.e. after lapse of 24 years, it would be futile to restore the O.P to file. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of the trial Court.

5. Therefore, the C.M.A stands dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.

__________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J

Date: 24.06.2024

IS

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 43/2011 Date: 24.06.2024

IS