The Hon'ble Apex Court in N.Balakrishnan v. M Krishnamurthy, held that

Petition under Artrcle 227 of the Constitution of lndra, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 5th Mach, 20 18 in LA No.1216 of 2018 in AS SR No.24272 of 2017 on the fite of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Between

1. Smt T. Kalavathi (died) per LR, Hyderabad 2. T. Srinivasa Rao, S/o Late T. Pentarah, aged about 38 years, Occ. Business in Shop N.1-1O-2121j, Ashoknasar' Hvderabad petit,";;[i$t"?,t8i,tJ* AND

1. Mr. Nagender, S/o Mr. P. Kumar Swamy, aged about 27 years, Occ. Business, Rlo 1-10-21211, Ground Floor and First Floor, situated at Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad,

2. Smt. P. Manuja, Wo P. Kumaraswamy, aged about 44 years. Occ. Business, Rlo 1-10-21211, Ground Floor and First Floor, situated at Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad

3. Smt. C. Subhadra, Wo C. Raghu, aged about 47 yea,ls, Occ. Household, Rlo 1-10-21211 situated at Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad

4. Mr. P- Kumaraswamy, S/o late Raja Narasaiah, aged about 49 years, Occ. Business, R/o l-6-867, Musheerabad For the Petitioners: Sri R.A. Achuthanand, Advocate ... Respondents/Respondents Respondents For the Respondents: Sri P. Achut Rama Shastry, Advocate The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI CIVIL REVISION PETITI ON No.1343 of 2019 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners-appellants aggrieved by the order dated 05.03.2019 in I.A. No. 1216 of 2018 in AS SR No.24272 of 2Ol7 passed by the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. Heard Sri Mohammed lsmail Ashfaq, learned counsel representing Sri R.A. Achutanand, leamed counsel on record for the petltroners.

3. Leamed counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner No. I fited a suit for specific performance for enforcement of a contract and a compromise was recorded in the said suit and the suit was accordingly decreed. In pursuance to the said compromise a sale deed was executed by respondent Nos.3 and 4 in favor of petitioner No. I in respect of the area which was allotted to them in a preliminary decree passed by the court in O.S. No. 1700 of 1994. O.S. No.1700 of 1994 was filed for partition and a preliminary decree was passed on

24.08.2001 allotting l/4'h share to the plaintiffs therein. A final decree application was also filed by the plaintiffs therein, In E.p. No.34 of 2 DT.GP,RJ < RP No 1t1l of2019 t! .t 2009 filed by the petitioners herein in O.S No.392 of 1986 on the file of VI Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, the respondent Nos.l and 2 filed a claim petition vide EA No-84 of 2013 and the said claim petition was allowed on24.03.2017. Aggrieved by atlowing EA No.84 of 20 I 3, the petitioners herein preferred an appeal which was numbered as AS SR No.24272 of 2017. As there was delay of 230 days in preferring the appeal, the petitioners filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay in preferring the appeal. The said application was dismissed by the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad on 05.03-2019. Aggrieved by which, this revision is preferred.

4. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner No'l died and she was represented by petitioner No.2, who was her legal representative. The petitioner No.2 suffered with severe lower back pain. He was diagnosed with Lumbar problem and other ailments and was advised physiotherapy and complete bed rest for six months' As such, he could not contact his counsel within the period of limitation' The petitioner had filed the medical certificate issued by the doctor, there was sufficient cause in not preferring the appeal within the stipulated period, but, the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, -:::..*'-"F-'7 I{yderabad erroncously dismissed the said application. I Ie further. contended that thc word "sufflcient cause" had to be interpreted liberalty to do substantial justice to the parties and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in N.Balakrishnan y. M. Krishnamurthyr

5. No representation by the counsel engaged by the respondents on 18.03.2025 as well as on the earlier occasion when the nratter was posted on t 1.03.2025

6. Perused the record

1. As seen from the record, the petitioner No.2 fited an affidavit in support of the application filed by him in I.A .No. l2l6 of 20lg for condonation ol delay of 230 days in preferring the appeal against the judgrnent and declce in E.A. No.84 ol'2013 in E.p. No.34 of 2009 in O.S. No.l92 ol 1996 on the file of the VI Senior Civil Judge, Ciry Civil Court, Ilyderabad. He statcd that hc was suffering with severc lower back pain and was unable to walk or stand for a prolonged period or sit and that he underwent necessary tests and was diagnosed with lumbar problem and other ailments and was advised physiothcrapy zmd complete bed rest for six rnonths and enclosed the medical certificate issued by the Civil Assistant Surgeon of Gandhi Hospital. , (1998) 7 SCC r 23 :48,!! 4 DTGRR,J Secunderabad. The learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, observing that the date of issuance of the medical ccrlificate was not mentioned and the doctor, who issued the certificate, was not exatnined and mere filing of the certificate could not be considered as sufticient reason for condoning the delay of eight months and by placing reliance on the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent therein that the petitioner was contesting the other suits and was carrying on business in the mulgi, dismissed the application filed by the petitioner therein. But, however, no proof was fited by the respondents therein also that the petitioner was contesting the matter after passing of the order in EA No.84 ol20l3 on24.03.201'l .

8. As seen from the medical certificate issued by the Civil Assistant Surgcon, Gandhi Hospital, the petitioner was in a bad state of health due to Lumbar Disc Prolapse and he was advised bed rest and physiotherapy for atleast six months with effect from27.06.2011

9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in N.Balakrishnan v. M Krishnamurthy, held that:

9. It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the court. Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit- Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest =-7 ) range may be uncondonablc due to want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases delay of vcry Iong range can be condoned as the explanation thereof is satisfactory. Once the court accepts the explanation as sufficient it is the result of positive exercise of discrction and normally the superior court should not disturb such finding, rnuch less in revisional jurisdiction, unlcss the exercise of discretion was on whole untenablc grounds or arbitrary or perverse. But it is a different matter when the first court reluses to condone the delay. In such cascs, the superior court would be free to consider the cause shown for the delay afresh and it is open to such superior court to come to its orvn finding even untranrntelcd bv the conclusion of the lower court.

10. Thc reason for such a drflerent stance is thlrs 'fhe primary function of a court is to adjudicate thc dispute between thc parties and to advance substaltial justice. Time limit fixed for approaching the court in different sih.rations in not because on the expiry of such time a bad cause would transform into a good cause. I I . Rute of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are ntcant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. Law of limitation fixes a life-span for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and the wasted time would never revisit. During efflu of time newer causes would sprout up necessitating ncwer persons to seek legal rernedy by approaching the courts. So a life span must bc fixcd for each rcmedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. Law of limitation is thus foundcd on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim Interest reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for the general rvelfare that a period be put to litrgation). Rules of linutation are nor meant to destroy the right of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their ren,edy promptly. The idea is that every legal 6 Dr CRR.J remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time.

12. A court knows that refusal to condone delay would result in foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the court is always deliberate. 'fhis Court has held that the words "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Lirnitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide Shakuntala Devi Jain Vs. Kuntal Kumari [AIR 1969 SC 5751 and State of West Bengal Vs. The Administrator, Howrah Municipality [AIR t 972 SC 1491. I 3. It must be remembered that in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concemed. That alone is not enough to tum down his plea and to shut the door against him. If the explanation does not smack of mala fides or it is not put forth as part of a dilatory strategy the court must show utmost consideration to the suitor. But when there is reasonable ground to think that the delay was occasioned by the party deliberately to gain time then the cou( should lean against acceptance of the explanation. While condoning delay the Could should not forget the opposite party altogether. lt must be bome in mind that he is a looser and he too would have incurred quiet a large litigation expenses. It would be a salutary guideline that when courts condone the delay due to laches on the part of the applicant the court shall compensate the opposite pary for his loss."

10. Considering the guidelines stated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the abovc case, as the reason for the delay stated by the pctitioner does not appear to be deliberate, but for the reasons stated by the doctor in his medical certificate and rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties but only to see that the pa(ies would not resoft ./ j*!t . {.. r-P,.f.t,-- i:- - 1 Dr.cRR.J cRP ]\b t143 of 20 t9 to dilatory tactics in seeking their remedy prornptly and by condoning the delav no prejudice would be caused to the respondents, it is considered fit to allow the CRI, setting aside the impugned orrlcr. I I. In the result, thc civir Revision pctitibn is ailowccl setting aside the order dated 05.03.2019 in I.A. No.1216 of 201g in AS SR No.24272 of 2017 passed by the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The office ol the learned Chief Judge, Ciry Civil Court, Hyderabad is directed to numbcr the appeal suit if the sanre was found to be in order. No orde r as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- A. PRATHIMA PUTY REGISTRAR D ECTION OFFICER N J //TRUE COPYII To, 1 The Chief Judge, City Civrl Court, Hyderabad 2. One CC to Sri R A Abhuthanand. Advocate IOPUCI 3. One CC to Sri P Achut Rama Shastry, Advoiate tOpUCl 4. Two CD Copies Y* HIGH COURT DATED:2510312O25 ) iiE S I.4 r(. ol(' t o O 2 5 lul 2P5 (a I-.,1 ORDER CRP No.1343 of2019 REVISION IS ALLOWED, NO COSTS 6*tqnL 66t'