Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
P Sandamma vs P Mandanababu on 13 November, 2024
r 3397 dew iN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVAT, WEDNESDAY ,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR -PRESENT: : HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAG IA No. 1 OF 2029 iN SA NO: 697 OF 2023 Batween: 1. Pukkalla Sandamma, wife of late Nallayya, Hindu, aged 58 years, residing al beach road, Kalingapatnam, Srikakulam District, DM . Pukkalla Sharalbaby, son of late Nallayya, Hindu, aged 45 years, residing at Kalingapainam, Gara Mandala, Srikakulam District. 3. Pukkalla Poornachandra, son of late Nallayya, Hindu, aged 30 years, residing al Kalingapatnam, Gara Mandalam, Srikakulam District . Patiiioners/Appaliants (Pettioner in SA 687 OF 2023 on the fe of High Court} AND 1. PB Mandanababu, Son of Late Chinna Suryanarayana, Hindu, aged 32 years, residing at Vadapalem Village, Lo. Kalingapainam, Gara Mandalam, Srikakulam District. Respondent/Respondaent 2. Pukkalla Nallayya, idied) Varad! Bapanayya, son of late Adinarayana, Hindu, aged 82 years, fad Residing al beach road, Kalingapatnam, Gara Mandalam, Srikakulam District EE, Mylapalli Laxmikantharima, wife of late sandayya, Hindu, aged O68 years, residing at main road leading to MaichslasemVadapalem, Gara Mandaiam, Srikakularn District, S. Bavilli Venu, san of late Balali, Hindu. aged 65 years, retired feacher, residing at Vadapalern, Gara Mandalam, Srikakulam District. a Boyina Venkatarao, , son of late Kanakarac, Hindu, aged 53 years, Door No.i-21, Machurapalll, connativanipalem, Macdhuravada sub-Devision, China GadiliMandalam, Machuravada, Visakhapatnam. Nekkanii Venkateshwararao, son of Ramakrishna, Hindu, aged 45 years, wong Riot Na. 6, Praceep Nagar, Viayanagaram town and Distt. 8. Vegi Padmini Sinha, son of Vegi Gnanendra Venkata Salyanarayana S, industrial Estate, Mayur m sinha, Hindu, aged 41 years, slot No. | Agencies, Viayanagaram iawn and Distric . .Respondents/Respondenis (Respondents im-do-} Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI S.V.S.S.8INVA RAM Counsel for the Respondents : SRI S LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY ate Patition under Section 157 CPC is fledpraying that in the ciroumstances stated in the affidavit {lec in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased fo condane the delay of 1731 days in representing the above Second Appeal, Pending disposal of SA No. SOY of 2025, on the file of the High Court The court while directing issue of notice to the Respondents herein ts sheay cause as to why this application shoud not be complied with, made fhe following order. The receipt of this order will be deemed to be the receipt of notice in ihe case), ORDER
"This application is filed seeking to condone the delay of 7727 days in representing the above Second Appeal, The cese of the petitioners in brief is as follows:
The petitioners herein are the appellants in the Second Appeal. The respondent No.1 herein has fied a suit in O.S.No.82 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Jadge, Srikakularn for partition of the sull schedule property Into two shares and for separate possession and the learned trial Judge had decreed the sult. Aguyrieved against the said Mecree and Judgment dated 12.12.2012, the appellants had preferred AS.No.wt7 of 2023 on the file of the if Additional District Judge-Cum- Family Court, Srikakulam, wherein the learned First Appellate Judge aiso dismissed the said Appeal Suit by confirming the finding given by the iparned trial Judge In Ns Judgment and Decree dated 12.12.2012 In O.5.No.83 of 2003.
The petitioners herein pleaded that though they have applied for the certified copy of the impugned Decree and Judgment on 08.10.2018, the same was delivered to them on 96.19.2018 and thereafter they have fled the secand appeal in the year 2019. The petitioners further pleaded that the petitioner No.1 suffered due fo Covid-19 for almost one (01) year and she aiso suffered several medical issues due to post Covid-19. The petitioner No.1 nleaded that m the Month of Novernber, 2023, when ahe completely got recovered, she requested her counsel to inform the status of the case, but to her utter surprise the clerk of her counsel verified from she Court record and found that due to certain office objections, the case le was returned on 14.03.2019, due to inadvertence her counsel had not informed regarding the return of the case file and that the said case file was not resubmitted within time. The petitioners further submitted that due to the aforesaid circumstances, the case file was represented with a delay of 1731 days.
The respondent No.(Plaintiff had fled a counter affidavit and contended that the delay of 4734 days in representing the Second Appeal is an Inordinate delay and the said delay was not at all explained by the petitioners in their affidavit. The respondent No.7 further contended that as per allegations made by the pelitioners in their affidavit, the present second appeal has been returned an W4.03.2019 and there is as explanation by the petiioners fram 14.05.2019 to HE the date of representation of the second appeal before the Registry. the respondent No. /plaintiff further contended that the delay of 1731 days in representing the Second appeal is an inordinate delay and as there is no explanation by the petitioners herein, Sri S.Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No/plainti® has vehemently opposed to allow the application filed seeking to condane the gelay in the representing the second appeal and requested fo dismiss the application as there are no merits in the sald application filed by the petitioners, Heard Sri S.V.8.S.Siva Ram isarned counsel for ths appellants/petitioners and Sri S.Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material available on record, Learned counsel for the respondents has relied on the Order dated 20.07.2023, passed by this Court in Kurakute Satyanarayana Vs Kurakule Nagamal and Ors, in C.R.P.No.184 of 2019 and the ratio laid down in the said case law has no dispute and the facts in the said case relates fo a Revision Petition fled against the orders passed in interlocutery Application Le, LA.No.1257 of 2018 which is filed before the trial Court.
Learned counsel for the respondents has also placed rellance on the Judgment passed by the High Court of Madras in Azhagu Samasivam Vs Azhagu Bangaru and Ors', wherein the ratic laid down in the sforasaid vase law is regarding the representation of appeal sull against the order passed by the First Appellate Court, Madras Division, Learned counsel for the respondents has placed rellance on the Judgment of High court of Madras in A. Muthusamy Vs, Muniarnmal and 'MQ NCC Gating Mad 2354 Ors®, wherein the said case law i iS regarding the interlocutory Application filed seeking te candone the delay of representing the appeal ON Learned counsel for the respondents has also placed reliance on the Sudgment passed by the Composite High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh af Hyderabad in G.R.P2742 of 2070 in G.Nanumantha Reo Vs.L.VSubbhaiah*, wherein the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad has held that the condonation of delay in representation is always in the discretion of the Court and hardly the opposite party would have any say In the matter and also further held that it is not uncommon that the plaints, applications or appeals presented before the Courts, are returned with objections duly stipulating time for compliance and that the partics or thelr advocates take more Gime than the stipulated one fo comply with the oblections.
The Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad had further held In the paragraph No.7 of its aforesaid Judgment that "4 different approach needs ta be adapted for condanatian of delay in representation in respect of original proceedings on the one Aand and appeals and other proceedings, an the other".
The learned counsel for the respondents has alse placed reliance in a Judgment passed by the Hon'bie Apex Court in B.A Ramachandran Vs State of Kerala and Anr.,". The facts in the case an hand are that as per the endorsement of the Registry, the present Second Appeal has been Hiec within the period of limitation.
Learned Counsel for the appellants/petitioners would contend that the written order made by the Registry may be treated as an Administrative Order and it cannot be treated as a Judicial one, the same "OSE CTC 187 '2ALL C) ALD 146 " AUR 1998 Sapreme Camrt 2I78 has been held by the High Court of Madras in Shuvaneswari vs RElumaiar, in @ case of ¥.iCushar Ys K.Subberayan", a Division Bench of the High Court of the Madras hes held that "he Court must agent iberai aivivuee whan if comes ta the condoning of the defay in representation."
Nl a case of G.Shraven Kumar vs 0. Srinivasuty (Died) Per brs. anc Ors.' the Camposite High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Myderabad has aise held as follows:
"Hi. There is ne Provision in OP.C., which Brescribes the Maximum period within which « relurned Proceeding should be represented info the Court..."
Admittedly, In the case on hand, as per the endorsement of the Registry, the aresent Second Appeal has been fled within the period of limitation and the delay of 1734 days had occurred in the representation of the Second Appeal. The contention of the petitioner No is that she had suffered many health issues dus te Cevid-1S and undoubtedly, the said delay in representing the Second Appeal is inorainate delay and Wf this application is not allowed, then the appetants/petitionars' substantial right of filing of the second appeal will be defeated and further the Secand Appellate Court has to verify whether thers are any substantial questions of law Involved or not. As stated supra, the Second Appeal has been fled within a period of limitation, if the delay in representing the Second appeal is condoned, no Brajudice wil be caused to the respondents, the respondents are having the liberty to raise their comentions before Hiis Caurt at the time of admission of the Second Appeal x "2D CPL 22 * 2803 FNL 39s "3064 1) ALT 639 SEE EEL Witla seri On considering the aforesaid circumstances, as the second appeal is filed within the period of imitation, iam of the considered view that the inordinate delay of 1734 days in representing the second appeal has fo be condoned by imposing costs of &s.10,000/. Therefore, the appallanis/petitianers herain are directed fo pay a cost of Rs.40,000/- (Rupeas Ten Thousand Only) to the respondent No.1/Plaintif? within a period of four (04) weeks. If is made clear thal ¥ the appellants/patitioners fails to comply this order, this petition shall stands automatically dismissed.
Accordingly, LA.No.1 of 2023 is allowed with casts."
SO-B.CHITT! JOSEPH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR TRUE COPYH Por ;
SECTION OFFICER Te, 4 © Mandanababu, Son of Late Chinna Suryanarayans, Hindu, aged 32 years, residing at Vadapalem Vilage, ilo. Kalingapainam, Gara Mandalarn, Srikakulam District, 2, Varaci Bapanayys, son of late Adinarayana, Hindu, aged 62 years, Residing at beach road, Kalingapainam, Sara Mandalam, Grikekuiam istrict.
ed Mylapalll Laxmikanthamma, wie of late sandayya, Hindu, aged 55 years, residing at main read leading to KMaichelasemVadapalem, Gara Mandaiam, Srikakulam District.
4. Bavilili Venu, son of late Balaji, Hindu, aged 65 years, retired teacher, residing at Vadapalem, Gara Mandaiam, Srikakulam District.
S Boyina Venkatarao, , Son of fate Kanakarac, Hindu, aged 53 years, Door No.1-21, Madhurapalli, connativanipaiem, Machuravada sub-Devision, Chine GadiliMandalam, Madhuravada, Visakhapalnam.
ond Nekkanti Venkafeshwararao, son of Ramakrishna, Hindu, aged 45 years, Plot No. 6, Pradeep Nagar, Viilayanagaram town and District.
Vegi Padmini Sinha, son of Vegi Gnanendra Venkata Satyanarayana oinha, Hindu, aged 41 years, olot No. F.3, Industrial Estate. Mayuri Agencies, Viayanagaram town and District.(1 to 7 By RPAD) One GC to SRE S.V.S.8.SIVA RAM Advocate [OPUCI Cine CC io SRI & LARSHMINARSAY ANA REDDY Advocate POR UC) Gne spare capy S S & S = = = s = = & .
.
= = .
= & = = & .
.
& = ee se Se .
se ce .
Ly, yg Be eG RARER x x SESS Cowan 8 S YH Sr SER SERRE SSS R # * AoE POST THE MATTER AFTER FOUR (09) WEEKS LA.NO.1 OF 2023 18 ALLOWED WITH COSTS rs wp oe eS os oi ie eS td ie hae ae es om a TA fw 6 . o 68068 ae ay) igh ; O " a ox _ cy ate o 5 < Ye a ae oe oy cy ne;