Delay petition - no medical record was produced by the revision-petitioner to establish that he suffered from serious ill-health during the period from 25.09.2012 to 30.05.2013. The Medical Certificate filed by the revisionpetitioner, was disputed contending that it was obtained by managing the doctor. 12. When the opposite party disputed the truth and veracity of the cause pleaded by the petitioner, onus is on the petitioner to prove the cause. Then the question whether it is a sufficient cause would arise.

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

TUESDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

PRSENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2346 OF 2015

Between:

1. KUDIPUDI SURYA RAO S/o.Pentayya, Occ: Agricultural Coolie

R/o.D.No.4-73, Tallarevu, East Godavari District, A.P.

...PETITIONER(S)

AND:

1. PILLI SATHI RAJU & 5 ORS S/o.Pentayya, Occ: Retired Teacher

R/o.Tallarevu, East Godavari District, A.P.

2. Surampudi Satyavathi D/o.Pilli Sathi Raju

R/o.Tallarevu, East Godavari District, A.P.

3. Penumalla Sathi Reddy [Died] -

4. Penumalla Narendra Vara Prasad S/o.Pilli Sathi Reddy, Occ: Student

R/o.Tallarevu, East Godavari District, A.P.

5. Penumalla Rama Lakshmi D/o.Pilli Sathi Reddy, Occ: Student

R/o.Tallarevu, East Godavari District, A.P.

6. Penumalla Suryanarayanamma WD/o.Pilli Sathi Reddy

R/o.Tallarevu, East Godavari District, A.P.

...RESPONDENTS

Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SARIPALLI SUBRAHMANYAM

Counsel for the Respondents: TURAGA SAI SURYA

The Court made the following: ORDER

2023:APHC:23399

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

****

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2346 of 2015

Between:

Kudipudi Surya Rao

… Petitioner/Petitioner/Appellant

 Versus

Pilli Sathi Raju and five (05) others

...Respondents/Respondents

* * * * *

DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED : 18.07.2023

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers

 may be allowed to see the Order? Yes/No

2. Whether the copy of Order may be

 marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No

3. Whether His Lordship wish to see the

 fair copy of the Order? Yes/No

____________________________________

 JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI

2023:APHC:23399

BVLNC, J CRP No.2346 of 2015

Page 2 of 8 Dt.18.07.2023

* HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI

+ CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2346 of 2015

% 18.07.2023

# Between:

Kudipudi Surya Rao

… Petitioner/Petitioner/Appellant

 Versus

Pilli Sathi Raju and five (05) others

...Respondents/Respondents

! Counsel for the Revision

petitioner : Sri Saripalli Subrahmanyam

^ Counsel for the Respondent

Nos.1 and 2

: - - -

^ Counsel for the Respondent

No.3

: „Died‟

^ Counsel for the Respondent

Nos.4 to 6

: Sri K.Chidambaram

< Gist:

> Head Note:

? Cases referred:

1. Maniben Devraj Shah vs. Municipal Corporation of

Brihan Mumbai reported in (2012) 5 Supreme

Court Cases 157.

2. Sugandhi (Died) by LRs and others vs. P.Rajkumar

reported in (2020) 10 Supreme Court Cases 706.

3. Basawaraj and another vs. Special Land

Acquisition Officer reported in 2013 (6) ALT (SC)

43 (D.B.)

This Court made the following:

2023:APHC:23399

BVLNC, J CRP No.2346 of 2015

Page 3 of 8 Dt.18.07.2023

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2346 OF 2015

O R D E R:

This revision-petition is directed against the Order, dated

17.03.2015 in I.A.No.121 of 2014 in A.S.No.120 of 2012 on the

file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada.

2. The revision-petitioner is the appellant in A.S.No.120 of

2012 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada. The

learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge „Dismissed‟ the appeal

vide A.S.No.120 of 2012 on 03.10.2012, for default. The revisionpetitioner filed I.A.No.121 of 2014 under Section 5 of the

Limitation Act, 1963 (for brevity „the Act‟) to condone the delay of

412 days in filing an application to set-aside the above referred

dismissal order in the appeal.

3. The revision-petitioner in his affidavit filed before the First

Appellate Court stated that for the last sixteen (16) months he

was seriously ill and therefore, he could not meet his counsel to

give instructions and four days prior to the date of affidavit, he

visited the office of his counsel, and he was informed that the

appeal was „Dismissed for default‟ on 03.10.2012 due to nonprosecution.

2023:APHC:23399

BVLNC, J CRP No.2346 of 2015

Page 4 of 8 Dt.18.07.2023

4. The respondent No.4 opposed the application and in his

verified counter, it was contended that the cause pleaded by the

revision-petitioner is false and if really a person suffers ill-health

from 25.09.2012 to 30.05.2013, he will have medical record, but

the revision-petitioner simply produced a certificate with false

information managing the doctor and therefore, the cause

pleaded by the revision-petitioner is devoid of any merits.

5. The learned First Appellate Court, upon considering the

rival contentions held that the revision-petitioner neither examine

the doctor nor produce the medical record with prescriptions and

diagnostic report proving the alleged ill-health during the period

i.e., from 25.09.2012 to 30.05.2013 and dismissed the

application.

6. In the light of the above context of the revision petitioner/

appellant and the respondents, the point that arises for

consideration is: -

“Whether the First Appellate Court committed any

material irregularity in the impugned Order, dated

17.03.2015 passed in I.A.No.121 of 2014 in A.S.No.120

of 2012 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge,

Kakinada?”

2023:APHC:23399

BVLNC, J CRP No.2346 of 2015

Page 5 of 8 Dt.18.07.2023

7. P O I N T: -

It is an admitted fact that the revision-petitioner preferred

A.S.No.120 of 2012 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge,

Kakinada challenging the Decree and Judgment passed in

O.S.No.303 of 2005, dated 25.10.2010 on the file of Principal

Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada; It is also an undisputed fact that

the appeal was „Dismissed for default‟ on 03.10.2012 due to nonprosecution; to set-aside the same, the revision-petitioner filed

I.A.No.121 of 2014 under Section 5 of the Act to condone the

delay of 412 days; The cause submitted for delay is that he

suffered from ill-health bedridden for a period of 16 months; The

respondent No.4 disputed the truth of the cause and contended

that the revision-petitioner produced a Medical Certificate with

false information by managing the Doctor.

8. In this context, it is imperative to refer the proposition of

law laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Maniben Devraj

Shah vs. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai1, wherein

their Lordships at para-Nos.23 and 24 held as under:

“23. What needs to be emphasised is that even though a

liberal and justice oriented approach is required to be

adopted in the exercise of power under Section 5 of the

1 (2012) 5 Supreme Court Cases 157.

2023:APHC:23399

BVLNC, J CRP No.2346 of 2015

Page 6 of 8 Dt.18.07.2023

Limitation Act and other similar statutes, the Courts can

neither become oblivious of the fact that the successful

litigant has acquired certain rights on the basis of the

judgment under challenge and a lot of time is consumed at

various stages of litigation apart from the cost.

24. What colour the expression “sufficient cause” would

get in the factual matrix of a given case would largely depend

on bona fide nature of the explanation. If the Court finds

that there has been no negligence on the part of the

applicant and the cause shown for the delay does not lack

bona fides, then it may condone the delay. If, on the other

hand, the explanation given by the applicant is found to be

concocted or he is thoroughly negligent in prosecuting his

cause, then it would be a legitimate exercise of discretion not

to condone the delay.”

9. Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Sugandhi (Died) by LRs and

others vs. P.Rajkumar2 and Basawaraj and another vs. Special

Land Acquisition Officer3 held that sufficient cause is distinct

from good cause and sufficient cause be given liberal

interpretation if negligence, inaction, or lack of bonafides cannot

be imputed to the applicant.

10. It is also an established principle of law that if negligence,

inaction, or lack of bonafides are made out and the cause pleaded

2 (2020) 10 Supreme Court Cases 706.

3 2013 (6) ALT (SC) 43 (D.B.).

2023:APHC:23399

BVLNC, J CRP No.2346 of 2015

Page 7 of 8 Dt.18.07.2023

by the petitioner is not established, the Court has no power to

extend the limitation on equitable grounds.

11. In the revision-petition on hand, the learned First Appellate

Judge, on facts categorically held that no medical record was

produced by the revision-petitioner to establish that he suffered

from serious ill-health during the period from 25.09.2012 to

30.05.2013. The Medical Certificate filed by the revisionpetitioner, was disputed contending that it was obtained by

managing the doctor.

12. When the opposite party disputed the truth and veracity of

the cause pleaded by the petitioner, onus is on the petitioner to

prove the cause. Then the question whether it is a sufficient

cause would arise.

13. In the light of specific and clear finding of the learned First

Appellate Judge that the cause of delay is not established and

lacks bonafides, then it would be legitimate for the Court not to

condone the delay. Otherwise, it would defeat the rights acquired

by the other party. Hence, there is no illegality committed by the

learned First Appellate Court.

2023:APHC:23399

BVLNC, J CRP No.2346 of 2015

Page 8 of 8 Dt.18.07.2023

14. Accordingly, Civil Revision Petition is „Dismissed‟. There

shall be no order as to costs.

15. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,

shall stand closed.

JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI

18th July 2023.

Note: LR Copy is to be marked.

B/o.

DNB

2023:APHC:23399