Telangana High Court
T. Aparna vs T. Kamala on 1 May, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
IA.No.1 of 2024
In/and
SECOND APPEAL No.236 of 2024
COMMON ORDER:
This application is filed seeking to condone the delay of 676
days in filing the Second Appeal against the judgment and decree,
dated 10.03.2022, passed by the XIII Additional District Judge,
Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar in AS.No.137 of 2018.
2. Heard Sri L.Harish, learned counsel for the petitioners and
Sri Bethi Venkateshwarlu, learned counsel for the respondents.
3. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, the
petitioners averred that pursuant to the preliminary decree dated
28.06.2017 passed in OS.No.929 of 2007, they are entitled to 1/4th
share in the suit A, B, C1, C2 and D schedule properties; that they
filed IA.No.4 of 2018 for passing final decree and simultaneously,
they filed IA.No.5 of 2018 for appointment of Advocate-
Commissioner, which was allowed and the Advocate-
Commissioner visited the suit schedule properties after intimating
the date and time of inspection to both the parties, but the
respondents/defendants did not choose to turn up; and at that
juncture, the respondents filed AS.No.137 of 2018 on the file of
LNA, J
XIII Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar
and the said Court granted interim stay till the disposal of the said
appeal; that ultimately, the said Appeal was partly allowed only to
the extent of C2 schedule property. Aggrieved by the same, the
petitioners preferred the present Appeal along with an application
for condonation of delay of 676 days in filing the Appeal.
4. The reasons put forth by petitioner No.1 for the delay that
occurred in filing the appeal are that she went to USA to visit her
daughter and thereafter, she was busy in performing the marriage
of her daughter and later, she suffered from ill-health and as such,
she could not contact the counsel and give instructions to file
Second Appeal in time and hence, prayed the Court to condone the
delay in filing the Second Appeal.
5. Respondent No.2 filed counter inter alia denying the reasons
put forth by petitioner No.1 for the delay in filing the Second
Appeal and further, submitted that in fact, the marriage of
petitioner No.1's daughter was performed on 28.11.2021, i.e., prior
to date of passing of judgment in AS.No.137 of 2018 on
10.03.2022; that after passing of the said judgment, the petitioners
LNA, J
have also paid Advocate-Commissioner's fee of Rs.15,000/- in the
month of January, 2024 and are actively participating in the final
decree proceedings and in such a case, the case of petitioner No.1
that as she was suffering with ill-health, she could not contact the
counsel and instruct him to file Second Appeal in time and hence,
the delay occurred cannot be believed and accordingly, averred that
the application is liable to be dismissed.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner
No.1 is a widow and she was looking after the welfare of the
family and and also pursuing AS.No.137 of 2018 before the first
Appellate Court, however, as she was busy in performing the
marriage of her daughter and later suffered with ill-health, she was
unable to give instructions to the counsel in time to file Second
Appeal and for the aforesaid reasons, the delay occurred in filing
the Second Appeal which is neither willful nor wanton on the part
of the petitioners and hence, prayed to condone the delay.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents submitted that
though petitioner No.1 claimed that she suffered with ill-health and
she visited her daughter's place at USA, she failed to produce any
LNA, J
material in proof of the same. He further submitted that even the
marriage of petitioner No.1's daughter was performed prior to
passing of judgment in AS.No.137 of 2018, which is under appeal
in the present Appeal, and therefore, the reasons put forth by
petitioner No.1 in the application are false and baseless and hence,
the application is liable to be dismissed.
8. This Court perused the entire material available on record.
The averment of the respondents in the counter that the marriage of
petitioner No.1's daughter was performed on 28.11.2021 i.e., prior
to passing of the impugned judgment was not denied by plaintiff
No.1. Further, petitioner No.1 has not produced any medical
certificate or records to substantiate her stand that she suffered with
ill-health. That apart, petitioner No.1 herself admitted that final
decree proceedings are being pursued by her counsel. Petitioner
No.1 also did not produce any material with regard to her travel to
USA to visit her daughter. In the light of the aforesaid facts, the
reasons put forth by petitioner No.1 for condoning the delay in
filing the present Appeal cannot be believed and it appears that she
approached this Court with unclean hands and failed to place any
LNA, J
material in support of her contention. Hence, she is not entitled to
indulgence of this Court.
9. For the foregoing reasons, the application is devoid of any
merits and is liable to be dismissed.
10. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. Consequently, the
Second Appeal stands dismissed.
11. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall
stand closed. No costs.
__________________________________
JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
Date:01.05.2025
dr
