Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Jatavallabula Venkata Ramana ... vs Jatavallabula Surya Subramanyam on 19 September, 2024
Author: Ninala Jayasurya
Bench: Ninala Jayasurya
APHC010162082024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3209]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No: 854 of 2024
Between:
Jatavallabula Venkata Ramana Subrahmanya Sri Tej ...PETITIONER
Kumar,
AND
Jatavallabula Surya Subramanyam and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:Mr.Chandra Sekhar Ilapakurti
Counsel for the Respondent(S):Mr. T.V.S.Prabhakar Rao
The Court made the following:
ORDER
The petitioner represented by his power of attorney holder filed
A.S.SR.No.6328 of 2022 in the Court of Principal District Judge, East
Godavari District at Rajamahendravaram, against the Judgment and
Decree in O.S.No.123 of 2006 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court,
Ramachandrapuram. Along with the said appeal, an application seeking
to condone the delay of 4387 days in preferring the Appeal was filed vide
I.A.No.2361 of 2022. Learned District Court dismissed the said
application. Aggrieved by which the present Revision Petition is filed.
2) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard the
learned counsel for the 1st respondent-Caveator and perused the material
on record.
3) Learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to the averments
made in the affidavit filed in the above mentioned I.A., made submissions
inter alia to the effect that the order of the dismissal is not sustainable as
the learned District Judge failed to appreciate that the delay in preferring
the Appeal occurred as the petitioner was misguided by the counsel
assisting the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner-Defendant No.4 in the said suit i.e., O.S.No.123 of 2006. He
submits that during the pendency of the said suit the petitioner initially got
a job in Bangalore and thereafter in abroad and as and when the
petitioner was enquiring about the progress of the suit the correct
information was not furnished. He was given to understand that the suit
is pending. He submits that to the utter surprise of the petitioner it
transpired that the suit was decreed by judgment dated 25.06.2010 and
the petitioner came to know about the same during the lockdown period
in 2021 due to Covid. He also submits that learned Senior Counsel to
whom the matter was entrusted died during the Covid period and after
making hectic efforts the petitioner could secure the entire bundle relating
to the suit, applied for certified copies of the Judgment and Decree and
thereafter filed an Appeal. He submits that the delay in filing the Appeal
was caused due to the above said reasons, that the same is neither willful
nor wanton and that unless the delay in filing the Appeal is condoned, the
valuable rights of the petitioners would be jeopardized. He also submits
that the learned District Judge, instead of taking liberal view in the facts
and circumstances of the case, went wrong in dismissing the application
for condonation of delay and the same warrants interference by this
Court.
4) On appreciation of the contentions / submissions of the learned
counsel for the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to accept the same.
The reasons seeking to condone the delay by alleging that the petitioner
was misguided by the concerned advocates cannot be countenanced. In
the suit the petitioner's father was arrayed as Defendant No.3 and the
petitioner herein was added as Defendant No.4 vide orders dated
30.07.2008 in I.A.No.1889 of 2006. As seen from the copy of the
Judgment dated 25.06.2010 in O.S.No.123 of 2006, it is crystal clear that
the matter was contested by the petitioner's father / defendant No. 3 and
the petitioner / defendant No.4. In the said circumstances it can be safely
presumed that the petitioner is quiet aware of the Judgment and Decree
dated 25.06.2010 against which an appeal with an inordinate delay of
4387 days is filed. A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the petition
to condone the delay would go to show that the petitioner though got a
job in the year 2007 at Bangalore was residing in India till 2015 and
thereafter the reasons for delay sought to be attributed to the learned
counsel appears to be only for the purpose of getting delay condoned.
Be that as it may.
5) Learned District Judge while appreciating the matter and holding
that limitation helps the litigants who are vigilant but not the negligent,
was not inclined to condone the extraordinary delay in filing the Appeal.
Learned District Judge had also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in Lanka Venkateswarlu v State of Andhra
Pradesh1 wherein inter alia it was held that the discretionary power has
to be exercised reasonably and within the well-established frame work,
considering the matter in its entirety. This Court see no illegality or
perversity in the order under revision.
6) Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
7) Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall
also stand closed.
____________________
NINALA JAYASURYA,J
Ssv
(2011) 4 SCC 363
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No: 854 of 2024
Date:19.09.2024
ssv
