The High Court · 2025

Nallapuneni Srinivasa Rao, S/o Late Laxmaiah, Aged about 40 Years, Occ. Agriculture, Fl/o Maddulapalli Village, Khammam Urban lvlandal, Khammam District Vallabhaneni Satyavathi, W/o Venkaiah, Aged about 41 Years, Occ. Household, Rl/o Teldarpalli Cross Road, I\laddulapalli Village, Khammam Urban fvlandal, Khammam District Sadineni Padma, Wo Venkata Narsaiah, Aged about 41 Years, Occ. Household, Fl/o Pandurangapuram Village, Palvoncha Mandal, Khammam District 3 4 5 6 7 8 o 10 11 The Swarna Bharathi College of Engineering, Rep. by its l\,4anaging Director, Chava Pratap Babu, S/o Name Not Known, Aged Major, R/o Maddulapalli Village, Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam District Telapudi Kishan Rao, S/o Pakiraiah, Aged about 80 Years, Ocr:. Agriculture, Rl/o D.No.1-32, Ponnekal Village, Tallampadu Village, Khammam Urban Ivlandal, Khar^nmam District Telapudi Ramu, S/o Kishan Rao, Aged about 64 Years, Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o D.No.'1-32, Ponnekal Village, Tallampadu Village, Khammam LJrban Land Mandal, Khammam District Nallapuneni Nirmala, D/o Kishan Rao, W/o Nallapuneni Kishan Rao, Aged about 55 Years, Occ. Household, Rl/o D.No.'1-32, Ponnekal Village, Tallampadu t/illage, Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam District (Respondents 9 to 11 are LRs of Telapudi Sangamma, W/o Kishan Rao) ...Respondents / Defendants lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 5 of Limitation Act praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidar,,it filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay ot 2784 days in filing the appeal. IA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 rlw Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to pass prohibiting orders, restraining the respondents from receiving land compensation amounts pertaining to Sy.No.375 wh ch is part of A suit schedule property. ''A' SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERry The dry land measuring Ac.20-09 gts in and out of Sy.No.375 and 376 situated at Ponnekallu Village and Khammam Rural l\/andal, Khammam Dist.. within the following boundaries. (Bifurcated as Sy. No.3754, 375AA, 375E, 375EE, 376N1 ,376A12) East Land of Varagani Mohan Rao West Ponnekallu Tank North Land cf Nemalipuri Pullaiah South Road lvlarket value Rs. '13,95,5251 ....> ,'8" SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTY Item No.l: The wet land measurin g Ac.7 .O2 gts in and out of Sy. No. 145 situated at Maddulapalli village and Khammam rural lvlandal, Khammam Dist., within the following boundaries. (Bifurcated as Sy.No. 145lAlA, 145/AA/AA, 145/AA/AA) East Land of Nallapuneni Parvathamma West Land of Nallapuneni Bhaskar Rao North Land of Nallapuneni Bhaskar Rao South Khammam - Suryapet R & B Road Item No.2: The land measuring Ac.B-04 gts in and out of Sy. No. 156 situated at Maddulapalli village and Khammam rural Mandal, Khammam Dist., within the following boundaries: East Land of Koppula Venkata Narsaiah, Koppula Latchaiah and Aitagani Satyanarayana West Land of Nallapuneni Venkata Babu - North Land of Nallapuneni Venkata Babu South Land of Nallapuneni APPa Rao Market value Rs. 13,95,525/- lA NO: 3 OF 2024 Petition under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 rlw Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to pass prohibitory order by way of iniunction, restraining the respondents from alienating the suit schedule properties and creating third party interest thereon during pendency of appeal. 'A' SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERW The dry land measuring Ac.20-09 gts in and out of Sy.No 375 and 376 situated at Ponnekallu Village and Khammam Rural Mandal, Khammam Dist" within the following boundaries. (Bifurcated as Sy. No.3754, 375AA,375E, 375EE, 376A11 ,376N2) East Land of Varagani ltrlohan Rao West Ponnekallu Tank (' t7 North Land cf Nemalipuri Pullaiah South Road lt/arket valur: Rs. 13,95,52Sl- "B' SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTY Item No.1 : The wet land measuring Ac.7 .o2 gts in and out of Sy. No. 145 situated at Maddulapalli village and Khammam rural Mandal, Khammam Dist., within the following boundaries. (Bifurcated as sy. No. 1 4sl At A, 1 4sl AN AA, 1 45/AA/AA) East Land of Nallapuneni parvathamma West Land cf Nallapuneni Bhaskar Rao North Land of Nallapuneni Bhaskar Rao South Khammam - Suryapet R & B Road Item No.2: The land measurinr] Ac.8-04 gts in and out of Sy. No. .156 situated at Maddulapalli village and Khammam rurar Mandar, Khammam Dist., within the foflowing boundaries: East Land of Koppura venkata Narsaiah, Koppura Latchaiah and Aitagani Satyanarayana West Land of Nallapuneni Venkata Babu North Land of Nallapuneni Venkata Babu South Land of Nallapuneni Appa Rao [,4arket value Rs. '13,95,525/- Counsel for the Appellant Sri V V Raghavan Counsel for the Respondent 3 to 7 & 9 to 11 Sri N V Anantha Krishna The Court made the following Common Order : ,) THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA I.A.No.O1 of 2o24 In And A.S.No.32O of 2o24 COMMON ORDER: This application is filed to condone the delay of 2784 days in preferring the appeal.

2. O.S.No.419 of 2008 was filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff against petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 8 for partition of the suit schedule property and for separate possession and the same was dismissed on 01.O8.2016. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner herein prelerred l-he appeal uide A.S.No.320 of 2024 wiLh a delay of 2784 days.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/ de fendan t No.2 stated that respondent No.1/plaintiff hled the suit uide O.S.No.419 of 20O8 for partition and separate possession of the surt scheduie proper[y along with petitioner anrl respondent Nos.2 lo 8 The suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties of one late Nallapaneni Pedda Hanumaiah, who is the lather of the petitioner herein and respondL'nt Nos. t and 2, iaLher-in law of respondent No.3 and paternal grandfather of respondent Nos.4 and 5. IIe died intestate without affecting partition of proper[ies. During his life time, he filed land ceiling declaration uide C.C.No.882 of 1975 mentioning that an extent of Ac.9-OO gts of land in Sy.No.375 was given to his daughters i.e., 2 respon(:l€nt No.1/plaintilf ancl petitioner/ defenclan t l,ro.2. After the death of the father of the petitioner herein, thc pattas were transferr,:cl in the name of petitioner,s mother r.e., l(anakamma and the lands were managed jointly by the petitiont,r,s mother and her trrother one la te La_xmaiah. Her brother died in the year 1985. TJ-rereafter, petitioner,s mother alone marraged the properties till her death in 2OO|_2OO2. Later, LR,s of petilioncr's brothcr were looking after the propertics ancl they used to gir.,c crop share to the petitioner hercin. The petitioner and resllcndent No.1 possession was recorded for the land to an extent of Ac.9 -OO gts in Sy.No.375, but partition ancl separate posscsstolt \\.as no[ affected with meets and bounds and patta was not translerrcd.

4. Later. responden ts / defendant Nos.3 to 5 marraged the revcnue authorities lo recorded their names as pattad,lrs in the revenue t-ccords without any succession proceed:ngs and partition dced. 'lhe said revenue entries were made wrthout the knowledge of the petitioner and respondent No.1 hr:rcin and stoppcd gir.ing share in the agricultural produce, as such, responden! No. 1 filcd suit for partition and separate posscssion. 5. Thc pe trtioncr/ defendant No.2 herein supported the respondenl. No. 1/plaintiff and not contesred th. matter personallv in the suit and remained ex_porte. The 3 petitioner/defendant No.2 being a coparcener, entitled for 1/3rd share in the suit schedule properties along with respondent No. 1/plaintiff and respondents/ defendant Nos.3 to 7.

6. The respondent No.1/plaintilf filed an appcal uide A.S.No.1118 of 2016. During the pendency of the appeal, respondent No. 1 expired on 16.09.2021. The LR's of respondent No. 1/plaintiff herei.n assured the petitioner/ defenda nt No.2 that they will implead as LR's of deceased and support the petitioner herein, but they played fraud by colluding with respondents/defendant Nos.3 to 7 and filed withdrau'al of I.A.No.1 of 2023 along with LR petition uide I.A.No.2 ol 2023 by moving lunch motion without giving notice to the contesting parties and without no objection from the previous counsel, it was withclrawn on 19.06.2023. Later, she filed I.A.No.O3 of 2023 arld I.A.No.OS of 2023, but they were dismissed on

03.10.2023. Petitioner herein also filed Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.4696 of 2024 on 16.02.2024, but the same was also dismissed with the oral observation to file a separate appeal, as such, she filed this appeal with a delay of 2784 days 7 . In a counter filed by respondent Nos.3 to 7 and 9 to 1 1, they dcnied all the contentions and stated that they have no knowledge of filing of SLP. Petitioner is well versed with legal knowledge and also in hling petitions, appeals etc. Respondent Ii&1!ln 4 Nos.3, 5 to 7 have been put to irreparable loss by thc concluct bf petitror-*:r sincc rast 16 years. petitioner herein also filed another suit uide O.S.No.23g of 2O0g for declaration of title and lor perpr:tual iniunction against respondent Nos.3 to 7 regarding the suit scrredule property. petitioner herein star[ed second round of litigation before this court having fa ed to contest the suir. LA.No. l i73 of 2oOg in O.S.No.23g of 2OO8 wa-.; dismissed on merits to an exlent of AC.S_OO gts, against whicl.L petitioner preferrer6l CMA. tvhen CMA was dismissed, she preferred C.R.P.No 358O of 2013 and stated that her husband is no way concerneri srith the litigation. Thus, the respondents requested this Court ro dismiss this application. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon decision ol Hon'blc Apex Court in Mir Mohsin Mohiud.din AIi Khan as. Mohd. Janit, in which it was held that ,,making tl.,.e reuision petiti.orter b suffer under an ex-parte d.ecree passed ruould be unjustifi,able. After all the purpose of Courts of lanu rc to rend_er substantic,.l justice bg giuing due opportunitg to both parties to exhibit their respectiue stand.s.,, He also reliecl upon Cecision of Hon'bk: Alrex Court in -8. S. Shesh agiri Settg and others os. State of Karnataka and Other*, in which the guidelines for condoning rhe dclay are rejlerared as follows:_ ':ot:(5)aLo-;-,TS) '(t0r6) 2 SCC t:r ..:. r. r i.,: ..-at:i;l/:..ij..-r...1...-'J. ...:. 5 "(1) Ordinaritg a lttigant does not stand to benefit bg lodging an appeaL lqte- (2) Refusing to condone delay can result Ln a meritoious matter beiag throlUn out at the uery thresho[d and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delag is condoned. the hlghest thctt can happen is that d cause wouLd be decided on meits ajler heaing the Pdrties. (3) Euery dag's deLaA must be exptained does not mean thot o pedanttc approach should be rnqde. Whg not every lrcur's delay, euery second's delag? The doctine must be applied in o rational common sense pragmatic monnet '- (4) When substantiat justice and technicol considerations are pitted- against each other, cause of substqntial iustice deserues to be prefeffed for the other sid'e cannot cLaim to haue uested ight in injustice being done becctuse of a non-deliberate deLaA. (5) There is no presumption thqt delag is occastonerl deliberatelg, or on account of culpable negligence' or on account of rnc.Lc fides. A litigont does not stond to benefit bA resorting to deloA. In Jact he runs a seious isk' lt rnust be grasped that iudiclary is respected not on acicount of its power ta legolize ttljustice on technical grounds but becquse it is capable of remowng injustice and is expected to do so." (6) g. Learned counsel for the respondent relied upon decrsion of Hon'ble Apex Court in Bakaant Slngh us. Jagdish Singh and Otherd, in which it was held as follows: " 6. Low of limitqtion mag harshly affect a particular partV but it ho,s to be apptied rttith all its igor when the -statite so prescrtbed and the Courts haue no pouter to extencl the pertod of timitation on equttable grounds. The discretion exercised bg the High Coufi was, thus' neither proper nor luclicious. TLe ord.er condoning the delag cqnnot be sustained." "11. T'he word,s " sulficient cause for not making the oppLication within the peiod of limitation" should .be iiderstood and apptied in a reasonable, pragmatic, practical and liberal manner, depending upon the facts anrl circumslances of the case, and the type oJ case. Tlrc tuords 'sufficieri couse' in Section 5 of Limitcltion Act shouLd ,"iiiuing a tiberal coftstntction so 4s to aduance substantiaL justice, .when the detay is not ot'L account oJ ang ditatory tocttcs, want of bontt fides deliberctte inaction or negligence on the part of the appellarut." ' atR 20 to scc 3043 6

10. In vrew of the above guidelines, it is for this Ctourt to see vvhcthe r the abnormal delay of 2Tg4 days is to be c,lndoned or not. Thruql-r rhe petitioner is defendant No.2 in the suit, she remaine<l ex-parte and dicl not contest the matter. She simply stated rhar she supported plaintiff/ respondent No.1. Appeal is prelerrcd :rsainst the judgment of the trial Corrrt. i)uring the pendencl of the appeal, parties withdrawn thc appeal uide The petitioner mainly contended that no notices u'ere given, as such the order of l,r,ithdrau,e.l is to be recalled. 'lhe saicl applicatiol lor recall is dismrssed by the High Court rvith the lollowing orcler: l.A.No.O 1 of 2023 11 "r.r, "r,. "p;";i-"I"; i..'i,]"i, "S1're (appellant herein) never contested in the suit and rrot filed appeal ir-rdependenily, u" i" .,o, .i,i,i.'to. .,*,r of judqmenI passed in the main l-,.r.,s..oJrellnnr i.r t h,. ma in ,pp.at.-' "o.",r* I-ate'r' pclitioner herein preferred SLp and it nas also dismrssed She simply stated that as per the oral ob servation, she intencl.ed to file the present appeal. Admittedly, there is no record ftrr oral observation, though she went up to Supremc Court, her contentions were negative in the High Courl and also in the S,preme court. If, she really interesterr in the proceedings, she oughL to have represented the matter before the trial Conrt iLself by duly contesting, but she failed to do so. Therelore , ,_he reasons stated by the petitioner for the a bnormal delay of nearlv g years is neither cor_rvincing nor satisfactory, as 1 she could not contest the suit and il cannot be said that most of the delay is only due to pendency of the cases before the proper forums. She kept quiet for all these years, as such now she cannot take advantage of her own mistake and contribute for more litigation. Therefore, this Court hnds that there arc no merits in I.A.No. 1 of 2024 in A.S.No.32O of 2024. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. Consequently, A.S.No.320 of 2024 is rejected. There shall be no order as to costs' Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. \ To, //TRUE COPY// SD/. M RAMANA K DEPUW REG SHNA, TRAR. SECTION OFFICER

1. The Senior Civil Judge Khammam (with records, if any) 2. One CC to Sri V V Raghavan, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri N V Anantha Krishna, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED:2410112025 ( COMMON ORDER l.A.No.1 ot 2024 in / and AS.No.320 ot 2024 - ---\ -2":j__: 1,.11i,, .t\i-_"'t-,'"., \, 'J 13 \\rli ?r?5 * OEsPN t,. \, .',I * DISMISSING THE I.A. & REJECTING THE APPEAL