High Court · 2025

Order

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitkrner - appellant aggrieved by the order dated 25.01.2019 passed in I.A.No. 1026 of 2018 in dismissing thc petition filed for condonation of delay of 274 days in fiting the appeal.

2. Heard Ms.P.Deepthi, learned counsel representing Sri A.Krishnam Raju, leamed counsel for the petitioner on record State Bank ol'India (ADB), Cherial Branch, represented by its Branch Manager and Sri J.Kanakaiah, learned counsel firr the respondent.

3. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submitted that O.S.No.98 of 2012 was filed by the respondent - plaintiffon the hle of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon. claiming damages. The said suit was decreed on 19.06.20 I 7. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the petitioner preferred an appea[. But, the appeal could not be preferred within the stipulated period o1 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 occuned a delay of274 days and the petitioner preferred I.A.No.1026 of 2018. But the leamed Principal ) Dr.GRR, J crp_919 2019 District Judge, Warangal dismissed thc 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 Othersrthat the discretion has to be exercised by thc Court liberally. but not arbitrarily'. Thc leamed Principal District Judge ought to have noted that there s'as no u,illful negligence or lack of bonafides on the part of the appellant bank olficials in not filing the appeal within the time. The reason assigned in the impugncd order u,as inappropriatc. The Branch Manager had given an undcrtaking to pal, the amount in EP as a warrant of attachment was brought to thc Branch to attach the movables such as Computers. ctc.. and the bailiff informed the bank ollicials that hc would be constrained to take those movables into his custody. [n the said circumstances, an undertaking was given by the Branch Manager to avoid any operational difficulties. The leamed Prinoipal District Judge *,ithout considering the circumstances under which the undcrtaking u'as given- precludcd the bank in preferring the appeal and prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the order of the leamed Principal District Judge, Warangal passed in I.A.No.l026 of 2018 in UR.AS dated 25.01.2019.

4. Leamed counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mool Chandra v. Union ot India and Another2, ' (2015) '(2025) l5 scc 659 I SCC 625 3 Dr.CRR, J crp_g19_2019 wherein it rvas held that while deciding an application for condonation of delay, the merits of thc case ought not to have gone into.

5. Leamed counsel for the respondent on the other hand contended that no sufficient causc wrs explained by the petitioner for condoning the delay of 2i7 4 days in filing the appeal. 'lhe Bank had come up with the present petition only to avoid the palmcnt of decreetal amount. The Bank Authorities had knowledge about the proceedings. The Bank Manager had given an undertaking on ()5.06.2018 that they would pay the decreetal amount by

26.06.2018 when the bailiff went with the attachment warrant. But tilt date. no amount was deposited before the trial court or paid to the respondent. The leamed Principal l)istrict Judge on considering all the aspects had dismissed the petition, which rvould 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 (ADII), Cherial Ilranch filed along with I.A.No.l026 of 2018. ir 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 ofregular audit. 4 \ Dr.CRR, J crp_919_2019

8. 'fhe leamed Principal District Judge rvhile dismissing the petition observcd that the said reasons given b1,the Bank Authorities were nothing but with regard to their daily business, which could not be considered as a sulficient reason lor condoning the delay.

9. The leamed Principal Districl Judge. Warangal had cxtracted the judgment ol the Hon'ble Apex Court in Esha Bhattarcharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and Others l(2013) 12 SCC 649] for considering whether the said explanation given by'the Bank Authorities would amount to sufficient cause.

10. The llon'ble Apex Court in GMG Engineering Industries and Others v. ISSA Green Power Solution and Others (citcd 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 bonafidc 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 acled with due diligence."

11. In Mool Chandra v. Union of India and Another (cited supra), the Hon'ble Apex held that: I 5 Dr.GRR, J crp_919_2019

22. This Cou( in Commissioner, Nagar Parishad, Bhilwara Vs. Labour Court, Bhilwara and Another [2009 (3) SC(; 525] has taken a view that while deciding an application for condonation of delay the High Court ought not to have gonc into thc rncrits ol'the case.

23. If negligence can be attributed to the appellant' then necessarily the delay which has not been condoned by thc Tribunal antl aftirmed by the High Court deserves to bt: accepted. llorvever, 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 ofthe delay, but the cause of the deta1,, $,hich was relevant for considering the application for condonation of detal and where the cause for delay falls within the four comers of sufficient cause. irrespcctive of length of delay, the same deserves to be condoned. However. rvhere the cause shown was insufficient, irrespective of period ofdelay, thc same could not be condoned.

13. ln the light of lhese principles, when the cause stated by the petitioner - appellant is considered. it was only stated that due to pressure of u,ork, shortage of staff and disbursing ol loans to farmers, self help groups and conduction of I regular audit. they could not contact their counsel to file the appeal in time, due to which the detay occurred. As rightly observed by the leamed Principal District Judge. warangal in the impugned order, the reasons stated by the I I I 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 Ilank Authorities to condone the delay, to consider the samc as sulficient cause. It woutd also disclose that the application for condonation oi delay was not drafted with a careful concem, but tvas made in a routine manner. lf 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 leamed Principal District Judge. J#arangal in dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner in I.A.No. 1026 of 20 I 8 dated

25.01 .2019.

14. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed conlirming thc ordcr dated 25.01.2019 passed in LA.No.l026 of 2018 in UR.AS by the leamcd Principal District Judge, Warangal. No order as to costs. As a sequel miscellaneous applications pending in this petition, if any. shall stand closed. i\ //[RUE coPvll S d/. L. LAKSHMI BABU iisiru.ii necrsrRAR / A SECTION OFFICER T'o, 1 2 3 4 ]CK H:if lTii?ffii##l{?"t{:l$",8,, Two CD CoPies' tptp {/4_ UC] HIGH COUR] DATED:74/02/2025 ORDER CRP.No.919 of 2079 Dismissing the C.R.P. rv itlrout costs. (n- 6 \ L \- 1*e STAr€ \ 23 nu 2u5 i t S P,',7 e.O