Chinthala Kotaiah vs Chinthapalli Muthamma
2022 Latest Caselaw 5486 Tel

            THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

               Civil Revision Petition No.2367 of 2022

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed impugning the order

dt.13.09.2022 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in A.S.S.R.No.1434 of 2021

on the file of the Principal District Judge, Khammam, whereby the

Court below has allowed the interlocutory application filed under Order

XLI Rule 3-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, read with Section 5

of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking to condone the delay of 1273 days

in preferring the appeal against the judgment and decree

dt.05.09.2017 passed in O.S.No.68 of 2014 by the learned Junior Civil

Judge, Khammam.

2. The petitioner herein is the respondent in the appeal and

plaintiff in the suit.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court below

erred in condoning the delay, without taking note of the fact that the

respondent herein had approached the Court with unclean hands and

that the delay has not been properly explained.

5. The Court below had allowed the said application, however, by

following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in LAO,

Ananthanag v. Katiji1, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had

observed that pragmatic approach should be adopted and not pedantic

approach in deciding such petitions.

6. The said approach adopted by the Court below in the view of

this Court does not suffer from any error for the petitioner to feel

aggrieved by the same for filing the present revision petition.

7. Further, a perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the petition

indicates that the petitioner therein has explained the delay in

preferring appeal with sufficient reasons, which appealed to the Court

below to exercise it's discretionary power and this Court would be loath

to interfere with such order in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under

Article 227 of the Constitution.

8. Further, it is also settled position of law that the term 'sufficient

cause' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act must be liberally construed

so as to advance substantial justice as held by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of Special Tehsildar, Land Acquisition, Kerala v.

K.V. Ayisumma2.

9. In view of the above, the Civil Revision Petition is devoid of any

merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

AIR 1987 SC 1353

(1996) 10 SCC 634

10. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall

stand closed.

_________________ T. VINOD KUMAR, J Date:29.10.2022

GJ

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

Civil Revision Petition No.2367 of 2022

29.10.2022

GJ