Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Garlapati Sridevi vs Karlapudi Chitti Thulasamma And 3 ... on 1 October, 2024
APHC010267732013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
[3460
AT AMARAVATI
]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY ,THE FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 4327/2013
Between:
Garlapati Sridevi ...PETITIONER
AND
Karlapudi Chitti Thulasamma 3 Others and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1SA
. RAZAK
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1 SRAVAN KUMAR MANNAVA
.
The Court made the following:
2
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 4327 of 2013
ORDER:
The present Civil Revision is filed questioning the Order dated
10.06.2013 in I.A.No.1758 of 2012 in unnumbered A.S.No.--of 2012
passed by the Principal District Judge, Guntur.
2. The Petitioner is the appellant. The petitioner had filed O.S.No.152
of 2005 to declare her as adoptive daughter of N. Bhushaiah and
Subbayamma and consequently declare that she is the absolute owner of
the suit schedule property. The said suit was dismissed by Decree and
Judgment dated 13.03.2012. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed
Appeal with a delay. As there was a delay of 49 days, the petitioner filed
I.A.No.1758 of 2012 to condone the delay. In the explanation for the
delay, the petitioner stated that her husband had been affected by a
paralysis stroke in the month of March, 2012 and he was shifted to Super
Specialty Hospital, Mangalagiri and other places. It is her case that after
recovery of her husband from the paralysis stroke, she enquired about the
suit and then she came to know the outcome of the suit. Immediately, the
petitioner has taken steps to file appeal and in the process, there was a
delay of 49 days in filing the appeal.
3. A Counter Affidavit was filed by the Defendants wherein the ill-
health of the husband of the petitioner was disputed on the ground that no
supporting medical record was filed and she did not file any document to
show that her husband was suffering with paralysis in the first week of
July 2012. The District Appellate Court after taking into consideration the
respective contentions dismissed the said application by opining that the
cause shown by the petitioner is not genuine. Hence, the present Civil
Revision is filed by the petitioner.
4. Heard the respective counsel.
5. This Court after hearing the respective arguments of the parties is
of the opinion that the delay of 49 days in filing the appeal is not
substantial and considering the explanation given by the petitioner that
her husband had suffered from paralysis attack in the month of March,
2012 and the petitioner suffered with fever in the first week of July, 2012,
the District Appellate Court should have been liberal approach in
considering the explanation. The claim of the petitioner being one for
declaration of title with regard to the immovable property and her status
as adoptive daughter, the District Appellate Court should have considered
the explanation with some empathy.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao
Patil, (2001) 9 SCC 106 made a distinction while condoning marginal delays
and inordinate delay for condonation. It was held that marginal delays, courts
should be liberal. The relevant part of paragraph 5 is extracted below:
"5. In exercising discretion under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act the courts should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction
must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a
case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case
the consideration of prejudice to the other side will be a relevant
factor so the case calls for a more cautious approach but in the
latter case, no such consideration may arise and such a case
deserves a liberal approach."
Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the delay of 49 days
should be condoned considering the explanation given by the petitioner.
Hence, the Order of the District Appellate Court is set aside.
7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed by setting aside
the Order dated 10.06.2013 in I.A.No.1758 of 2012 in Unnumbered
A.S.No.--of 2012 on the file of the District Judge, Guntur. No order as to
costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
___________________
NYAPATHY VIJAY, J
Date: 01-10-2024
eha
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 4327 of 2013
Dt.01-10-2024
eha
U
