In Basawaraj and another v. Special

Petition under Section 5 of Limitation Act praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 2043 days in filing the above Second Appeal in the interest of justice. S.A.No.200 of 2O25: Appeal U/s100 of C.P.C against the Common Judgment and Decree made in A.S.No.89 ot 2O14 dated 19.06.2019 on the file of Court of the Xlll Additional District & Sessions Judge, R.R.District at L.B.Nagar preferred against the Judgment and Decree made in O.S.No.1310 of 2009 Dated 08.07.2013 on the file Principal Junior Civil Judge, R.R.District at L.B.Nagar. Counsel for the Appellant : SRl. N RAVI Counsel for the Respondents: --- The Court made the following: JUDGEMNT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY r.A.NO.1 0F 2025 IN/AND SECOND APPEAL NO.2OO OF 2O2I; COMMON JUDGMENT: This Scr;r>nd Appeal is filed aggrieved by t[ r: .judgrnent and decree dated 19.06.20 19 passed in A.S No.89 of 2t + on the hle of " XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge l?.R.District at L.B.Nagar, []]'dcrabad, td-rerelty and where under, -h: judgment and decree dated 08.07.2013 in O.S.No.131O of 2009 I r the h1e of the Principal Junior Civil Juclge, R.R.District ill L.B.Nagar was confirrmed. As tl-rere is dclay ol 2043 days in prclt ring the presen[ Appe al, the pr:tit ionc r / appellan t filcd I.A.No.1 of 2() ll, 1.o condor-re thc said delay.

2. Heard Siri N.Ravi, lcarned counsel for the petiii rner/appellant

3. Withor-rt referring to thc merits of the pr::;' nt appeal, it is appropriate t,r first consider the I.A.No.1 ol 2025 fil :r lbr condonation of delay of 2043 days in preferring the appeal.

4. The learned counsel for petitioner/ appellant. u ould submit that the pctitioncr herein is a defendant in O.S.No.1l 1l of 2009 rvhich was ltled for perpetual injunction and the said s,r ii. was decreed by the trial Cor,rrt ulde judgment and decree dated 03.,) r'20O9. Aggrieved !!!!t!- \$.--1.*-fir'-. \ 2 by the same, petitioner/ appellant and others prelerred first appeal in A.S.No.89 of 2Ol4 on the file of XIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, R.R.District at L.B.Nagar and the same was also dismissed by the first Appellate Court uide judgment and decree dated 19.06.2019, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 08.07.2013, present appeal is hled along with an application uide I.A.No.2 of 2025 to condone the delay of 2043 days in preferring the second appeal.

5. The only point to be considered by this Court is rvhether the petitione r could make out a case for condonation of inordinate delay of 2043 days in preferring the appeal.

6. tn the afhdavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay, it is mentioned that after dismissal of A.S.No.89 of 2OI4 dated 19.06.2019 appellant intended to file the second appeal but due to Corona virus and total lock down imposed by the Government and as appellant himself affected with corona virus he was totally bed-ridden and apart from the above said circumstances, appellant was suffering with old age ailments due to which appellant was almost confined to bed till March, 2024. It is further contended that after his partial recovery, he contacted the counsel on record in the trial Court and obtained the certihed copies on 15.04.2025 and 3 contacted his counsel to preler the second appe: try then, there occurred a delav of 2043 days in filing the present s; c rnd appeal.

7. Except Jtating that appcllant came to knoi,r' : bor-rt passing of the ludgement and decree in A.S.No.89 of 2OI4 zL r< 'urther due to covid lockdov.n and old age ailments, he coulcl iot contacl her counsel in pn:ferring the prcsellt appeal, no valid €L r( (;ogent reasons have been assigned by the pctitioner/ appellant li,r condonation of inordinate dc ay of 2043 da1,s and no material is :r ar:ed in proof of said averme r ts. Appcal rvas dismissed mr-rch ,r ior to Covid- 19 pandemic pe,-iod and no rcasons have been asr; I rcd as to $,hat prevented thc pe titioner/ appellant from preferring, rl'appeal prior to Covid pandenric period.

8. From thc ar.erments made in thc affirdavit fil<:,: n support of the condonation rrlrplication, it is cvident that appellar t is not diligent in pursuing the matter and fLrrther, failed to offer r ogent, plausible reasons for condonalion of inordinate delay of 2O4.a ( ays in preferring the appeal.

9. In Basawaraj and another v. Special ..irnd Acquisition Officerr, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as unde. "11. r'hc expression "sufficient cause" should be lirsn a tiberal interJ)rctation to ensure ihat substantial justice is rlc re, but only so lorrg rzs negLigerrce, inaction or lack of bona Ji te; cannot be itttpuled to tlv parlA cotrcented, whether or not sr [l.cient cause has been furnished, can be decided on the facts (,[ r particular ' zor: (ra) scc ar 4