The High Court · 2025

'1. Chalamalla Swarnalatha, Wo. Srinivas Reddy, / Aged about 65 years, Occ. House hold, Rlo.24-97, Road No. 17, Snehapuri Colony, Nagole, Hyderabad ..Respondent No.1/Petitioner/Appellant

2. Chitla Ravinder, Sio. Late Venkat Reddy, age 63 years, Occ. agriculture, ( R/o. Nellutla village, Lingalghanpur Mandal, Jangaon Diskict

3. Malipeddi Susheela Devi (Died), (Died) 4. Balije (Siddirala) Kalamma, Wio. Rajaiah, age 60 years, occ. House hold, Rt/o. Nellutla village, Lingalghanpur Mandal, Jangaon District

5. Gadipelli Shankar, S/o. Narsaiah, age 63 years, Occ. agriculture, R/o. Nellutla village, Lingalghanpur Mandal, Jangaon District (Died)

6. Ramasahayam Jyothi Devi, Wo. Late Venkat Reddy Aged about 70 years, Occ. household R/o. Nellutla Village, Lingal Ghanpur Mandal Jangaon District (Respondents 2 and 6 are not necessary parties) .,.RESPONDENTS lA NO: 'l OF 2025 Petition under Section _1s r cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition ihe"High court ,uv ou prur."o tJ g'r""t interim suspension of the impugned order dated-1 1-03_2025 in lA. No.gB of 2023 h^Unregistered Appeal Suit of.20231presenfly numbered as AS. No. 6 ol 202s) in oS No 43 of 2009 on the fire of the court ot tne erincijaioirtritl Lrig" Ji l"rir"" pending disposal of the above Civil Revision petition. Counsel for the petitioner: SRI ASHOK REDDy KANATHALA Counsel for the Respondents: SRI RAKESH SHARMA GANGU The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR WKANTI CTVIL REVISION PETITION No.2272 of 2o25 ORDER: Aggrieved by order, dated 11.O3.2O25, passed in I.A.No.88 of 2023 in Unregistered Appeal Suit of 2023 (presently numbered as AS.No.6 of 20251 on the frle of the Principal District Judge at Jangaon, the present Civil Revision Petition is hled.

2. O.S.No.43 of 2OO9 was filed by Challa Aruna Devi (revision petitioner in present CRP) for perpetual injunction on the hle of Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon and the same was partly decreed on 22.07 -2022.

3. I.A.No.8S of 2023 in Unregistered Appeal Suit of 2023 (presently numbered as AS.No.6 of 20251 was filed by Chalamatla Swarna-latha (respondent No.1 in present CRP) under Order XLI Rule 34 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'C.P.C') to condone the delay of 225 days ftorn 22.08.2022 to O4.O4.2O23 in .-\ ---l 2 JAK, J crp-227 2 -2025 preferring the appeal. The trial Court after hearing the matter at length and referring to catena of judgments held that O.S.No.43 of 2OO9 was conducted for 13 long years from 2OO9 to 2022. lrrespective of result, hling of the appeal is minimum right which accrued to the party who lost the case. For the non-explanation of deiay properly, the right of Chalamalla Swarnalatha (respondent No.1 in present CRP) cannot be deprived and allowcd the petition by condoning the delay of 225 days on payment of costs of Rs.2,0OO/-.

4. The said order is under challenge in the present Civil Revision Petition.

5. Learned counsel for revision- petitioner submitted that there is inordinate delay of 225 days in fi1ing the appeal and the delay is not explained properly. It is further submitted that the trial Court has not assigned any proper reasons for condoning the delay arld passed an order mechanically condoning the delay. 3 JAK, J crp 2272 2025

6. Learned counsel submittecl that the Honble Apex Court in catena of judgments held that each day of delay must be explained. In the present case, no such explanation is forthcoming. Inspite of the same, the trial Court imposed a meager costs of Rs.2,0OO/- and allowed the condone delay petition without proper application of mind. It is pointed out that O.S.No.43 of 2009 was filed lor perpetua-l injunction and the szune was partly decreed on 22.07.2022. It is further submitted that the said suit was dragged on for 13 long years and thereafter, the appeal is filed with delay of 225 days That delay tactics are being employed and that no reasons are forthcoming in the delay petition. 7 . Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that respondent No. 1 is aged 65 years and has suffered I I heart attack. That for this reason, she was unable to contact her counsel in preferring the appeal and hence the delay of 225 days. It is further submitted that the delay was not willful. + \:il l JAK, J crp_2272 2025

8. Considered the rival submissions, this Court is of the opinion that interest(s) of justice would be met if respondent No.l be permitted to continue with the appeal suit proceedings on payment of costs of Rs.33,000/- to the opposite party within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by way of demand draft or a balker,s cheque. Needless to state that, upon such payment of amount arrd filing proof of payment of such amount, the tria,l Court shall proceed with the appeal suit.

9. With the above direction, the Civil Revision petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shal stald closed SD/. A.V.S.PRASAD DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// li \,. t vY SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal District Judge at Jangaon , . i o.L cc idSri Ashok Redldv Kanathala ,Advocate-[oPU^C] 5. o;; cc io Sri Rakesh Shaima Gangu, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies 5 NY,B/PSL -I HIGH COURT I DATED:01 10812025 R THe s 14

16. o a :l ) J 13il6m 1 f- 1i C, ORDER CRP.No.2272 ot 2025 f)e,! olTClr eO oP DISPOSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION GJt?'4 g,o- -';"\:/12r