Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Golkonda Textiles Pvt. Ltd. vs M/S Sri Lalitha Cotton Ginning Company on 4 October, 2024
Author: Ninala Jayasurya
Bench: Ninala Jayasurya
INTHE HIGH COURT OF = ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVA
FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
'PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
AND
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM
iA No. 1 OF 2023
iN
AS NO: &7 OF 3023
Between:
1. Golkonda Textiles Pyt. Lid. rep.by its Managing Director, Regd. Office
No 1-?-t40, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, Mills: Manneguda Pudur
Mandal, Ranga Ready district Telangsna State.
é. Mahmood Alam Khan, S/o Late Shah Alarn Khan Aged about 84 years,
Qce: Managing Director cum Director Rio 3-4-7682, Rahat Kade
Barkatpura, Hyderabad.
a. Mustefa Alam Khan, S fo Late Shah Alam Khan Aged 80 years, Whole
Fire Director Ryo 3. -4-782, Rahat Kada Barkaipura, Nyderabad.
. Appellants/Defendanis 1,284
(Petitioner in AS 8&7 OF 3093
on the file of High Court}
AND
1. Mis Sri Lalitha Cotton Ginning Company, A Rarinership firm represented
by is Manag ng Pariner Boggaranu Nagaralu S/o Subbaguruvaigh
Aged about 47 years, Hindu, Business Rio O.Ne. 20/478, Vivekananda
Street, Nand schyer! town and Mandal, Kurnool district,
Respondent/Plaingt
: vo , , ;
# : " y w ey
aa Si GOS se faa
fee og £4 Boies aoe,
» Le od asd . ne thet
wo "4 ce a a, ee
to xs rm f ay ors é
a fe Desens 2 ce a -
Gg & go" BB
fs oS se to
a at
Sot,
pea
BS,
Sa
Reed
ed
3)
She
es
noe
pn
Cod
teed
ee & fs
a ae on £5
oe gt pi rs a!
tae mG on gi me wee ee.
gr fe *s Bo B pee an
bo abe tt, fy 4
Fea] > oS in my
Rae Fane om See te i of
7 rs, ws a
"ES Soe a ve ie
Le Prey fA per) ¢ 3 ore
an , 5 , ws .
oe ee ify fd "ee ed a
Ee % Cy Ch Ld oe "ageee
ih 603 # to pee : oe
s ' o Py
. Lo denn an
wg 2 o wo
ewnd we yy fen aeall ¢"
4 oh. ao "£3 0. ; sage
seach bees ; * 3 oy :
ey "3 a Pes 1 "gem
ae oo Ea rd "Te a
axe oS on eee iss]
iy wy is ed Erease "£5 CS
ae eee need a a
a wae £3 "Ct 2
Paane Mn, iv p eed
e Look od i a & {F
¢ Peon i .
a nr
tc i oo @ a go es
oe a baw "4 es on £3
ey YY egpen, peg fe ~ £o A
ed mS ben ed % pa
"ae Fe o foe hy 3 "4
2 we se he st feet
a gene 7 prea C
: f 8 & pf g = 2
a stron 'ne! 4 heed
a ot cf " fe Ke x
& hy ao sa a +
= 4 Food
a a me ge BR
nn aa
iS: uy so
ood weres eS
saree tat tates
Panding ci
;
=
of at Nandya
isiniet duct
Le
e)
3
ei Adcitional
Counsel for the Petitioners SSR] SUREPALLI MADHAVA RAG
Counsel for the Respondent No.l :Sri N SRIRAM MURTHY
LAA TAP a2 3 dA, S.8a.
The Court made the following:
e eToys ey Ate iy Dy, free Sie sarypeandins deapeoeves y
ORDER Per Horrble Sov. Justice Sumatil Jagadan)
This application is fled by the peliioners/appellants/ defendants 1,
2 & 4 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 71963, seeking fo condone the
delay of 1480 days in filing the appeal against the judgment and decree
dated 61.11.2018 passed by the Hl Adcltional District Judge, Kurnoo! at
Nandyal, in O.S.No.35 of 2013, whereby the suit fled by the 1°
respondent/plainiff for recovery of a sum of Rs.4.02. 82 747/- has been
decreed ex parfe against the pelitioners wih costs and subsequent
3
interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of sult HH the date of realization.
2 Leamed counsel for the pelitianers/delendants contended that the
oetiloners were unaware of the judgment and ex parte decree passed by
the inal Court unt they received the demand notice dated 79-71-2022
under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2012. The learned counsel
submitted thal defendant Nool was set ex parte, and defendant No.3 fled
a written statement in the sul, and the same was adopled by defendant
Nos.2 and 4. The learned counsel contended that the pellioners were not
aware thal their counsel had reported "no instructions" on their behalf
before the trial Court. fois his further submission that the wife of
defendant No. 2 has been suffering fram lachernic Encephaloy pathy in a
minimally conscious state since 2008. endant No. admitted his wie
nee
rsh
BE
rs
x
Ne petite
per
LA
7
Se
3
'ot
ithe a
urtin Sesh Narr Singh Vs,
a
ve Bank Limited' and Lala Mare
Seray
z
™
Baidyabars Sheoraghull Co-9
Din Vs. 4. Narayanan'.
On the other }
aoe
to explain the encarrno
ae
loners
a
oy
N
x
bet
sahee,
heel
By
c
4
ares
< my
Pat
Ne
nds te
IOU
¢
Pine
NESE J ist
LANO.2/2023 in AS No.8? of 2025
alleged suffering of the wife of the 2" defendant is not an obstacte for the
2° defendant to contest the suit. This apmication is flecl only to orotract
the ligation, and the apopfication is liable fo be dismissed. in Support of
his contentions, he placed rellance on the decisions in Tahsifdar, Guntur
District Vs. Mangalagiri Patlana Padmasall Bahuthama Sangha,
Guntur INetric', Jampala Poornananda Venkateswara Prasad Vs.
Roshini Chl Funds and Finance Pvt. Lid.' Maji Sannemma @
sanyasiraa Vs. Reddy Sridevi i Basawaraj Vs. the Spi Land
Acquisition Officer®. Gudipalli Venkateswara Rao Vs. Chukka
Sivakumari.', Union Bank af india v Nripen Sarma® and Pathapati
Subba Reddy v Special Deputy Collector',
4. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the
CHations relied on by the learned counsel for the partes
&, The main submission with regard fo occurrence of de! ay is that the
2™ petitioners wife was sufferi ing from Ischemic Encephalopathy in a
minimally conscious state. She was admitted fo Liavathi Hospital in
Mumbai on 16.08.2008 and was discharged on 22.08.2074 and an the
* 2054 (2) ALO S? ga AP
"2024 EP ALD 283 (A:
* AIR 2022 $C
* AIR IOLA BE Fae
"3024 GP ALD 259 (Ap)
# aap 2 {AC £237
AIR 2G1 R23
LO?
BPAU SE iS}
BS SSSSSSSSENSSSSERSE NOSSO
"3 oy 5 ; 7
as on @ y 5) pote As i " w seeee " eyes
we fee ae £ a "3 4 eo a Be G @ £5 i Q oe
£3 Let ed oe) re wt te fod rn rere ne; ee preg hot P}
"e fet a 2 % -- ma Cte es fon pe a ce 8
pe ny La kos td ihe st 5 pe aed fe a Ct to Be
rn ae eo 2 gg % G B ww 2 Ss aA 8G
2 ~ ee ie _ mr ne ae tse chet 03 rans vs as ae eogee
it 3 bat 3 m4 ¢ me Hn a me Beer B ge = S
i wale asl om uy Gee fest ceed , 'ee rs Pin me ben
"3 3 tet " oe bee 5 B ay ie os es 3 seed ae
& 8 & ~ 8 & 8 £6 & @€ 2B ee £ oo %
ome an % en Sone ; ; "ang ae - Wy Gt
od eee eS [oe oo, ce "3 Lo pero. "pe ge tM "pes bes pos oe mC £ is
ze ewe ae ea ery 'nb see, pe om] w os £3 % ao
¥ Bi cert ~~ xe] ~~ ed oon os we poooe ce Iaodin ra) ress fa
s an 1S boon "oy $5 a a C3 ay a u ee ee
z a io isd 3 het wees ° a wet 4 S oan "
" " 2 a bee a an a a3 wy ae oe ay "e i gh,
: ee &% e % ay a ooh & £8 & a a oy OS
g & 2. CO fg % Fm Yo BY 'i eo te is &
* i rae fove "oe yee Setbe vee be oe on "es 74 $4 vate fon net
"sr rer teen [an ed pao aeok Pa, pot a Mead Cm.. es os nd
= ao f ogo pm 3 £& wm & tt 5 Oe O % gs
ae % chet a ns "0 Le oy oon 4 tee boa
: te me cs: w Stren 15 in 's ae a6: acs 0G "0 gen "£3 4 eS
"ey os Fe 2 a BN ho ae _ wy oe po a ye
Eo ge 7 a ao fa ce oe 2 OS -- eG
Xe ee 3 ie % re ° : ® ca "3 aj as fe nd pet "OSS
oh. a7 rs oS tA on on Aen has ay ay "ot " , re ~ Bees OO
7 5 fs 3 me Me ne basen: sosed chon chee vee a vee
ee a $e & wae a 'eo " 5 Sone foes % Teoe * OS
os we ie, "one x ps Sif oe " ae nae rn aa oa " A ed e
LA cece Hs C3 ere oh. be tS C3 % cae wi os a le 3
E te! i" pe Mm om a oe @ is wy oe te ae: tego
a yee Poon. es a whoo 4 eon 15% "3 oe we i a &S bees
ao 0S heed oy ce pees 6% 7 ae on eheed mg bene _ we
oe Pos a fA Send bes wa , i aoe ih ore ie co of: ae
'< EE xe " Se Bee o oy a @ vp , fe ed oe a ge
Lo eee betoo trot as tnem e 4 en " en [aan Meee Ke £ vy % a
po Hy Pied "erg roree. 3 * eo ia] cand a Lae
ten hoc heer ay 5eeeed es oe ae yo ae ne *; 7 tt whos a <>
ree ey fr wheee in Lot ps4 beve ir ue ott 'ye ae 56% oS
x) eet Sf Feaal "Bot SC fo Reg v% are eevee thet Af re i, ~ » sacl
Lew a a eee "ws or a tA ae a2 1 i ry whee. AY i S
yen Posi 'nea " tot nad a 5 iy Bows tid a Ad va it Ot oe ta
ve ae wm "eet ors oh. id we ae w] ia we we ed vere abe on
' t 'ew, 'nas ne ane on geeee
thd re eS oA te, ye a oy ad po ae % waves as i daoee aed
4, bone, ee jee rs / ws 'en the 7
oa oe Soe ee ay fA a be £3 - wa ie is con Q ee
weed on o "pork . Yen Oe: tiie "wh on i C4 er we ie omy ae %
ty & " a 3h See fad i tees ta md an a. be
rm Hate here wh ye cea oA roa we at a rae % q , ion
oe raee i anne shen, $ ae 'howe ¢% boot on Ka if Py ths
is * wiped pee . pees, LA 4 teed oy 3 " " we
gen vee me ras a et ra -- 33 oy r% ad " c mo "e
Got us os a faa , : Sen ie oo oi a a weed eee £3 94, K
ee ons z si ra 4 3 verre 4, abet
eee ry "es ack ee $77 "ree weap [a hewe a, baad ane nt Oo
ge nn an a Ck a ae eo Be 2 & a
4 a % ast r, id bro tod we ares ee >
i oS rn rr 2 . & £ & 6 28 £ ad
&
i
p
vy
8
ee from the
to
Ne
>
g
n
8S
i
ff
i
f
Bos
3
y ws
a 5 ® we
it) " uy "Ch y eee pn acd "4
m @ 2 ¢ Bf 6&8 G& ~~ -£ £ , ; :
ey ; ar wa og Zs rt ia & ee +3 a & Ch 2 &
os 2 i oD oe. ¢ 'oie o ts ee, a4 or is th
& a ra " ae he stot pa ee we a ® w? He Ge
ay vaeee bok a Barve fe ne ce See pen whuot Pao Got 7% % hs nam on
; ee ai ¢ "at oo a Bon) pas " ae 34 ye Boat aa
Lo eS & ~ a Ge oo 2 oF) & ied B Q 5 8
pag ut yet wee ese Py 5 fae on a & ' hee Py w bos oe = go _ ES
f a PA Bee oy se ® op, Bg my be
egy i a Sy) wg, . aa toe a3 Oo ay, elie fee + es Pies z O
eo , peed ; ce an oe > 3 oe ee & & wD w ee
om & 6 ae 7 se an rns: a a > a 0 ES
rye *. 44, e3 An ra itt wer gore on ed Aen : '3 baa °
we fae a ; is Seve gn 4 3 Seen 4 fosed dig
Ne 3 Co joe wes eene fa poe a A pri fe a a sen io oy ay"
| one os ie m meee no te Fee Tha
es a Ch. £2. nO "er aS: o od Roe 7% ey verre Joao x
we. bea, won 4% . en eee
a ° eet trebag . u on ate "3 "3 BE ra et
SB oO © % &o@ & 6 t 2 B & w B 8
a en Be wh "5 x JG i x. my ay tecbe os oe St 6 CS P
"bed 3 pe ay a 'bon. e% we % ge LA . "apee. re
on fe feo 3 ES & po oy ORS
A ot pe cage
LANDIS In $3 We 8
iNGre ig no qeneral Propeeition that mistake of counse! by Heelf is
aiways a sufficient ground. if is SiWays @ question whether the
mistake was bone fide or was merely a device to cover an ulterior
PUPPOSe Such as laches on the part of the Higant ar an atiemm to
Save limitation in ar underhanel ¢ way,
8, in Seshnath Singh case (7? supra} while refer Ting to the decisions
in Shakuntala Devi Jain v Kuntal Kumari" and State of West Sengal
¥ Howrah Munlcinaiity wherein it was held that the expression
'sufficient cause' should be construed liberally io advance substantial
justice, the Horvble Apex Court opined that "acceptance of explanation
furnished should be the fulé snd refusal an exception, when nan
negligence or inaction or wart of bona fides can be imputed fo the
efaulting party'. The Hon' ble Court also opined that ° when Stakes are
gh, the explanation should not be rejected by faking a pedantic and
hypertechnical view of the matter, causing thereby irreparable loss and
injury to the party against whom the fis terminafes. The courts are
required fo strike a balance between the legitimate rights and interest of
ihe respective parties"
9. in Mali Sannemma case (3 supra} refied on by the learned
counsel for fhe respondent, the Horvble ® Supreme Court was inclined fo
interfere with the order passed by the High Court of AP, allowing the
AR 2969 $C 575
.
m= o ws
Sone ad e weed
rn oe @ 8 &
'. Hod a [a oe cn
4 Se " see :
Ba gf ~ a 2 F Ss
weece i com [an aire,
nh hock Wy AS) 5 a & wat Ba Been B on ro '
£84 wae be " Le "ee gt ie Mo oe 7 hot ey
by , oo we 'oon eee oe 6B @ o oe em Ch sa Se ts it
SE ie rr a g@ 2 OR BE whe * eo 3 oe
"et & tS i 'een & wid i , iy by a Ps ~
an ge ws ce a Co os tok pd '
ras) oe fore ro ve "a nan i {o zh tod oe aa woop pag hae ie
om > od ina vebege £e % oS tS ee ae oe Sper ; r% ry a)
passed ry hod ¢ oe es ° Be OE 1% re) Be: yee "fs 'ed . &%
nee A Es} a Ky "T% oe pees Ks "33 wesen 4 PA "4
A Pa a +) 6 % os BS & * G2 on & we ®
tft ebeet eed oa beoe A @ Oo es % t ae om vite Eb hked a
ised lone % &. poe ees wer " - 12 iy y wees: 4 hed S Boned te
veg oa enna pan ond arg ed oa tea fe hee 4 633 Pac check Varo fae)
S s £% 3 oO ae ae > 2 @ BB i pe oo "pore ei " sheet
o> Poets boo yy - pa 1er6 3 ot fee [an net Seee ae C3 gen
Cy Pas a. ae id ot oe oe aa eee oe cory ro) ews
en ee a St " es Bow ee g uss SA ont ie "3 &
ais od re % 'Sn tx es Same "3 ts be < ae oe
: z ie is 2 wt 3 2 74 eee pe aoe "
hs "Sin, C3 pes hk ms nn wy tA wed oan . Read 5 os
ah pa ge CH rigs Bow fe 're ee, ee wy : :
Sn, rs ot ose Stree. 5 ye ol "ee on hres Peas been
oon LP a 4 ¥ os tet oa oe 4's cw be, nA £3 tad 3
$ ide BS poee eben "ned ead ents & & & bee " fe pet < eo we
eh "if £3 £ oan o a) Soe hoe @
oo Be bes bi "omg ts tee ao at, in vere : beow 3
% a 4 iar an . aot a4 $b Be ws Teoed weet oe sea "po, os
pen 5 & se a fen i, Bg oe as fe rs e @
pen Pied At ed sae Ai a , t & & 5 ie rm Seae mo Kx
- ee ip we xy 8B BP Bs ee
i whe sehees % ¢ <> Ls ., > ' mr by Oo Le
eet a Es apece eo? a. "es x 04 1 . a apes es "5 eet
* non fee Y i ie ey seen AS & B us a itt y oS
" A id 2 cad Sea "-- . e3 Lode on need cy fs aad
ed as ve 4 Fase ; eens ro ere coe whee
"en ~ . ee , en i rns ar $a ea im oe ad as
¢ vod ree % oo ae fet eS 's won. f% weet Meet .
ad ° oo pee feo ny a os aa 12 eel we "4%
vn, dene an a _ abt % ' i. ; ao dove ?
on, " ie B as wt oe hot 6G 4 te oe we
2 hood on ot, rag ey to 4 wt eee bf P Arse ps g
3 c i ; is oi ee RB E vas ee an a
* re $a a oh, os o on oo ro wag fas Hs aS es hee
Bee Ss vm od GS rs ae ie ih oy Se a a
3 ; ae " = Jd oS ee hi a) bee ed 4 on
" a a 4 deer " oA 63, vapet " £7 bebe
At G3 tee a £4 idee nee to aA ered hs be fog bape
; a eo hey te ras 4 om ean me Gog wy a3
pe wm ap es as 6 es ig me bene cr Leads yee: pi
bs 3 & ' cS BES ase a a fe Sn nc
a3 ° . or es Sere Oo arcs) oe - ; GS ',
. tnd he ohooh Lan f 34 oat a) ' a 23] head as
ie , o 2 A ao i ee a ge my OD
& os) fi em % " seer [a a ft Ps ped £2 i we a os
ty o 8 8 'at aw es B& ¢ m 6 cs, cS & 6% © w ~
id tft fnnees " . pot "ed pi ae) Ws shea a 8 yer a7 on Ae ped fe) .
ce Aa weet it 5 oy e 2 2 on "wf Poe ie ote as ' Af sooo
Ss ; ; j he ° " , ocd ' f res
oo G os ae be pas & ge 28 Be ae took wee {% ee +, ie MY
£3 ye i: ' os tts Bogs ps ; bad i ee ee
non Bat 1% Gen eco id oo @ BOG a" te ws a ds Psd #3 rs
pre Fea % fore ft, a roo & & B pa fe ke i Ee we fd
oA E By ce fet, 2 & ® ea Es se oe tS cB.
Gok _ 7. Be % wood poet i bee ry od ' otped peor ae ¥ ste * Fas]
| & e wo & | ~ &§ Paw B ma Be 2 eT
cc poeees ge thee cnoe a Aned eee --_ be oo as @ oe "ge : neden, ws wine our,
: %y 7 8% © €@€ & # & 3 3 "ee i 20)
32 ae a % 4 con vege & f& 6 3 4, i mS 3 Pe non ee [a
week . "a LO eh poe 7 ot & eo rs % es H ben
uS "rene i) ye ee he : eos don, on ay
¢ fas] ne " Jove Bs 7% nono, * tee. od "ore
SO fe wa TS a o6 ae i Gs % "ee OB
4 sl ay a "3 & oe is] ne os ay a ea
Gere gh. vee bon or "ice a ye a "SS P oS, bos 5 ened
eg = & cs & & & e ff &
2 ; we % wer - ; ti m Son ae
we &€ % oe GB & 6 & &
& won ee a wm & a;
a foee. oD tedne wo rs 4 Year,
eons iY po - ae aaa fase ewer
ie ceewe ty an bee ko
nn be oc, |B : a 86 ft
apo as bn tak 5 oo Pan
eee apere ¢ 3 we ae
of "5,
Oo
a. Na, E2029 ta 8, %. NOt
Shown and that the delay is not Hable to be condo sed On the ground that
Some persons have basen granted rae'
12. When the Parly falls to approach the Court within the stioulated
Eme and comes forward with an explanation for SOndoning the coloss sal
delay, the Court # sat isfied that the delay ' oogasioned is not due to the
deliberate conduct of ihe party but due fo unforeseen Feasons, by using
ifs ascretionary power can allow the cancone dalay application, Cin
perusal of the entire recard, i cen be seen that the earlier Cases between
both parties were fot contested and they were setfied before the Lok
Adalat, The 2° ' petitioner's WHS was suffering from severe Usbealih and
she needs care round the glock. That apart, the counsel reporigd no
instructions. Considering the Same, Oise Court being satisfied tha?
Sufficient reasons exist, feels 4 appropiate to condone ihe delay
application in terms of the Judgment of the Full Bench of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in WL Mohan y R, Madhy,?*
i4, In the said Case, 8 Mree Judge Bench of the Hon'ble SUprEMe
Court of india was dealing with an Appeal flac against ihe arder passed
by the High Court of Madras at Madurai Ranch "refusing to condones the
dslay of 548 days in fling the First Appeal The appellant, who was the
gefendant in OS.NG.78 of 2075 an the fe of the Additional District
* (2670) 20 See any
% * vy on bees ¢ Cth £5 ge a 23
a rs > > a n° oie $ £ £ 2 & & 2B fe
ios = wie 0 rae ie cm a we a a hy BA "ey Ly hens w se oes pot on
£ $ howe deve wed 5 ve f alee, ned wv, + g
wbeen 4 ewe pone preee. oaren, me heed yas By 6 eee, ay tit we x yaa eokan,
ieee at 3 & vs ayeee om tS hoot $7 RAN) ben oh < 18% pot
, a A ie ; - os ws #3 Ld *apens - % aoe x fs on
Wao an Sneed w gh tabrn tape on at A Paid ie "5 "4 a aq a ae
won ad th. oe od "4 , aes foo & Py € Ke aa) a ee bee a bd
gene if a y a " i Son % im 2, seen, "ad ry eee wel +; ,
wm fe ¢ an a 4 GS SF 6 £ 8 » Fb "i aw
i dara " BA P ¥ ie "ee 4 we is as " Z
NS OC « GG @ rr rr es . £ B® & ¢ ~ gw B a we
en on ey wpe vote, ca a, woes f wy a os ee "3 Fesee, wi on reas
Yipes Lt a codon 'ee oS basen Huh fee - £55) "o ie ood a be ~ 5 wa
© 3 res vs OH 63 esd Ct oe 7 ? 24! ad os
3 te B Bs % oy 5 23 a Fags MS, £3 * ky % an £ am
he re) wo Bf Eg fm G pm | a f 6% B&O a
i yr " we eo %y 5 i woes 4% a pesos wo BD . 4% dove
2 wv ye ir a eo = ss ed SB alone 3 % be 2 bees " "e3 "tr aS os
vi, ae Pas _ gq * As . in we f whet pon bore fone on vores an
° aA ed re on foe em eee A hd oe Sohee oh he "E4 a ay wy ed
" eenee me, gee eter te ne '0 Sad
2 & <e oo 5S ee o shove es tt ae Saad as : o. & 403 £% & we oo
ie aa hese ee oe 4 . ° 2 ' re 1 4 ro 7 Basi ro i aa
"g oes ae w aS ie te we eget c it " oer a ag) 3B ee Te ts fae ran ws
we or y "Fs é ' ES ca 1G 3 2 lee "tet A FR aj oA 4, 4 aed, ES fe
he 5 See. Pos aad Bs a of 64 dace 'ty Be i 13 a . a oy "s
tpneee ¢ if <4 "C3 a we i poe OSs age fapog on ay 7A : Fa $4,
8 un a ae oA aft ri re .s: as yy , iy fon £4 - is
ia bee oe Je " bebe, g lee tece ei EE, noe ae note
gee gee a pesos oy 4 cn oe f% be a sweres beoe a ay i oe fi . nel ;
fe fe 6 1G tice we is be ie LA ary wi ie - we os od. £3 foes vat
oon 4 a . nent lene ees 4" ed eheaas q. 1' "
es es rn a, rns 7 a Be
ane Wo 2 OM EL me fs @ "3 "i '
% ny ra ae io, 4 See"
a4 x a a or o Ze aye ye ene -
od rn Leone a beh eine ah oe been ve LE boos we pa gong £4 i
awe 03 f a Pes £73 re wh 4 oe eo oe i a not
te ger e % gone i iF; sod iB avd on ra
eg shoes £3 Pom wa be ad fs ihe itt ES a] tid 4 fe; on
"2 ber ped a tose 3 7 oo eo whe eee , oe an os) 'fs ben
EE CF td oo 2% a se rs Bn veh oy ty a oh ' od
ose ae ee wetle C3 "ed a 3 % vt Z I 8 res se
ohn a oH < iad i bee ted Sede vee & "6 a a4
4 : ise A's 43 * {ts fs bree yee . a3 pee wo Cn At we
a is a rt' o%, : ae As bees o" % 4 Son i Sea tt pee
eB Bo te Be o@ © B&B = © % g§ © & a &
. we bove sheen 7A, x. ae eet Fas Shee es a deed
Bg f &§ B@ By F BS € 8 ~ g B £ B # fe
ee Y, Cod, ' * fan Sere t +. ? thpeds
re 4% cn a rn oS a are OTS "BOD es
a ee oe Oe a a he fon have xt oy a tt ye Us
Ds 'ot 2 i a ue a & a3 ¥en ot as eA i bee fee 3
an ry o iG ka mab w ms oe) or a oben fac a ay a5
speed ae . 4 we o neon un Aue £ rows ens igs "tt Pred,
aan ee 4 3 re on saves uA on , om Ne C3 stipe ~n CS of te
Reem fos he ro ae Me cS ; me 3 or . % oe a w 2
% 5 tect C3 od as oy 4 ad "ace 43 et a oo ro £4
oe os "fe : we #3 By a ke oo an '
we Oo mm go = as ee 2c mS
; a $ t me hone '. ween £ {
Lh ap & ££ 9» @ ~~ & 6 GB = 9 ww & 2». GB 6
in as = . oe ook Cb cus ions t ol 4 ne a as + OS
ee " id nd wn ea a bee rhe md ee ee BA % "pr
ene ¢ Laoe Ke gee hes oo ten, eh 4 £3 fesitin pene feed
oy Ge G Z ~ & eo go BB @ 8B eo & es: %
re wan 4 She ee as ee ore seed ; tre gr
> be ke ie OG BS "~ gS ££ @ 2 ££ €
Bn, pted haeeed Looe % ae oo ' ene ro ect
on 7 B & © 6 2 2 a ge
* oy 3 ci aoa qo i oe "tee " 5a Pe t Bo ¢
Onbece --% an ey "hea %% hong mS & re thon ae igh hes Be
oe, 4 betee - wrote - nape reese aoe
o 6 b 8 & Bo oe ee 2 6S
chee pon 4 rd 4
2 a cad @ cam fee a a se - a) Sa my & ae 4 ie
ws s Li? _ eo a pet 5 lee £3 "e% ~% & we 7
% "4 Ee : t rose tape HS , ia ae po £2 @ rots (7 om
oe Gs os me | ah m z zs
B we th $a
a
&
o
at
if
iS
S
3
o
the
8
CG
é
"777+ sssennnnnnco noc eRRERRRRRR ARON
NEAR ESS
LA Na. LYSE in AS NOS? of 2009
earlier orders, in the facts and circurnstances of the case, felt that the
appellant deserves an Gpportunty to pul forth Ais defence in the suit for
recovery of money, however imposed a condition that the appellant shall
deposit the balance amount of Rs. 20,00,000/. as a condition orecedent
far concdonation of delay.
TS. In our view, the peut ners rm lay be aflorded an opportunity contest
the sull which is Hed for: rECOVE! y OF huge ammount. Af the same time, the
we
interest of the respondant- flaintff should also be safequarded.,
erate
Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to condane the delay by
pulling the petitioners on terms.
18. Acvordingly, the delay of 1480 days in fling the. anneal is
condoned, subject to the condition of pehtioners-appellants depositing
1/4" of the suit arnount to the credit of O.3.No.35 of 2043 on the fe of
the Court of 3° Additional District Ju doe *, Kurnool within @ period of four
(Q4) weeks fram today. If the betvoners-appellants fail to deposit the said
amount within ine time stioulater by this Court, this interlocutory
Application shall stand cisrissed.,
TRUE COPY!
BSSSSSSSSSSSSSS SSCS SSS SESS
ARMINIA
he
,
The Hl Additional District Judge, Kurnond at Nandyal
M/s Sr Latitha Coffen Ginning Cornpany, A parinership firm
represented by its Managing Partner Boggarapu Nagarany S/o
Subbacuruvaiah Aged about 47 years, Hindu, Business Rfo D.Ne.
SO/479, Vivekananda Street, Nandyal town and Mandal, Kurnool
disthgl( By RPAD}
One CG to SRE SUREPALL] MADHAVA RAO Advocate [OPUC)
One OG to SRE N SRIRAM MURTHY Acivocais KDFUCT
Two spare copes
HIGH COURT
NUS. &
WSJ
DATED 4 osn3g
ORDER
LIST A.S.NO.S87 oF 2023 ON 14.44.9094
IN
SIT .
SESS,
AS NO: 87 OF 2929
'ATIS ALLOWED
