Telangana High Court
State Bank Of India vs Medichelimi Sattaiah on 14 February, 2025
Author: G.Radha Rani
Bench: G.Radha Rani
THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.919 of 2019
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner - appellant aggrieved by the order dated 25.01.2019 passed in I.A.No.1026 of 2018 in dismissing the petition filed for condonation of delay of 274 days in filing the appeal.
2. Heard Ms.P.Deepthi, learned counsel representing Sri A.Krishnam Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner on record - State Bank of India (ADB), Cherial Branch, represented by its Branch Manager and Sri J.Kanakaiah, learned counsel for the respondent.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that O.S.No.98 of 2012 was filed by the respondent - plaintiff on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon, claiming damages. The said suit was decreed on 19.06.2017. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the petitioner preferred an appeal. But, the appeal could not be preferred within the stipulated period of time due to pressure of work, shortage of staff and disbursing of loans to farmers, self help groups and conduction of regular audit, as such, there occurred a delay of 274 days and the petitioner preferred I.A.No.1026 of 2018. But the learned Principal 2 Dr.GRR, J crp_919_2019 District Judge, Warangal dismissed the same without following the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in GMG Engineering Industries and Others v. ISSA Green Power Solution and Others 1 that the discretion has to be exercised by the Court liberally, but not arbitrarily. The learned Principal District Judge ought to have noted that there was no willful negligence or lack of bonafides on the part of the appellant bank officials in not filing the appeal within the time. The reason assigned in the impugned order was inappropriate. The Branch Manager had given an undertaking to pay the amount in EP as a warrant of attachment was brought to the Branch to attach the movables such as Computers, etc., and the bailiff informed the bank officials that he would be constrained to take those movables into his custody. In the said circumstances, an undertaking was given by the Branch Manager to avoid any operational difficulties. The learned Principal District Judge without considering the circumstances under which the undertaking was given, precluded the bank in preferring the appeal and prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the order of the learned Principal District Judge, Warangal passed in I.A.No.1026 of 2018 in UR.AS dated 25.01.2019.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mool Chandra v. Union of India and Another 2 , 1 (2015) 15 SCC 659 2 (2025) 1 SCC 625 3 Dr.GRR, J crp_919_2019 wherein it was held that while deciding an application for condonation of delay, the merits of the case ought not to have gone into.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand contended that no sufficient cause was explained by the petitioner for condoning the delay of 274 days in filing the appeal. The Bank had come up with the present petition only to avoid the payment of decreetal amount. The Bank Authorities had knowledge about the proceedings. The Bank Manager had given an undertaking on 05.06.2018 that they would pay the decreetal amount by 26.06.2018 when the bailiff went with the attachment warrant. But till date, no amount was deposited before the trial court or paid to the respondent. The learned Principal District Judge on considering all the aspects had dismissed the petition, which would not require any interference by this Court in the revision and prayed to dismiss the revision.
6. Perused the record.
7. As seen from the affidavit filed by the Branch Manager of State Bank of India (ADB), Cherial Branch filed along with I.A.No.1026 of 2018, it was only stated that non-preferring of appeal within the stipulated time was due to pressure of work, shortage of staff and disbursing of loans to farmers, self help groups and conduction of regular audit.
4
Dr.GRR, J crp_919_2019
8. The learned Principal District Judge while dismissing the petition observed that the said reasons given by the Bank Authorities were nothing but with regard to their daily business, which could not be considered as a sufficient reason for condoning the delay.
9. The learned Principal District Judge, Warangal had extracted the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Esha Bhattarcharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and Others [(2013) 12 SCC 649] for considering whether the said explanation given by the Bank Authorities would amount to sufficient cause.
10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in GMG Engineering Industries and Others v. ISSA Green Power Solution and Others (cited supra), held that:
"7. It is well settled that the expression "sufficient cause" is to receive liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. When there is no negligence, inaction or want of bonafide is imputable to the appellants, the delay has to be condoned. The discretion is to be exercised like any other judicial discretion with vigilance and circumspection. The discretion is not to be exercised in any arbitrary, vague or fanciful manner. The true test is to see whether the applicant has acted with due diligence."
11. In Mool Chandra v. Union of India and Another (cited supra), the Hon'ble Apex held that:
5
Dr.GRR, J crp_919_2019
22. This Court in Commissioner, Nagar Parishad, Bhilwara Vs. Labour Court, Bhilwara and Another [2009 (3) SCC 525] has taken a view that while deciding an application for condonation of delay the High Court ought not to have gone into the merits of the case.
23. If negligence can be attributed to the appellant, then necessarily the delay which has not been condoned by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court deserves to be accepted. However, if no fault can be laid at the doors of the appellant and cause shown is sufficient then we are of the considered view that both the Tribunal and the High Court were in error in not adopting a liberal approach or justice oriented approach to condone the delay.
12. It is a settled principle of law that it is not the length of the delay, but the cause of the delay, which was relevant for considering the application for condonation of delay and where the cause for delay falls within the four corners of sufficient cause, irrespective of length of delay, the same deserves to be condoned. However, where the cause shown was insufficient, irrespective of period of delay, the same could not be condoned.
13. In the light of these principles, when the cause stated by the petitioner - appellant is considered, it was only stated that due to pressure of work, shortage of staff and disbursing of loans to farmers, self help groups and conduction of regular audit, they could not contact their counsel to file the appeal in time, due to which the delay occurred. As rightly observed by the learned Principal District Judge, Warangal in the impugned order, the reasons stated by the 6 Dr.GRR, J crp_919_2019 petitioner were nothing but, which they would come across while conducting the daily business of the bank. There is no proper explanation given by the Bank Authorities to condone the delay, to consider the same as sufficient cause. It would also disclose that the application for condonation of delay was not drafted with a careful concern, but was made in a routine manner. If the explanation offered is considered as not a sufficient cause, the Courts should not expose the other side unnecessarily to face the litigation. As such, this Court finds no illegality in the order of the learned Principal District Judge, Warangal in dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner in I.A.No.1026 of 2018 dated 25.01.2019.
14. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the order dated 25.01.2019 passed in I.A.No.1026 of 2018 in UR.AS by the learned Principal District Judge, Warangal. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending in this petition, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________ Dr. G. RADHARANI, J Date: 14th February, 2025 Nsk.