The High Court · 2025

lr-an, S/o. Late Sri Mirza Hussain Ali Khan. I'ge'd about 32 rrr:ss. R/o. 17-1-315127IA, Owaisi Colony, "aku:pura, Khan, S/o. Late Sri Mirza Hussain Ali Khan A3ed about 30 r,:ss, R/o 17-1-315127IA, Owaisi Colony, Ya[(utsura I rn, S/o. Late Sri [Vlirza Hussain Ali Khan, /\ged about 26 r,r:ss, R/o. 17-1-3151271A, Owaisi Colony, \/akutpura, lespondents/Petitioners/LRs of Defendant ltlo.2 in SA :r l.A.NO.2 OF 2024 irV/o. Sri tVIrr Murad Ali Khan, about 67 years, ( )cc. .)eltan, New Jersey - 08075, USA. also Res ditrg at r, Road No 3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-34. rr:rndenURespondents No.1/Plaintiff in SA and l.A'NO.2 OF 2024

13.Mtza Hasan r\l Years, Occ. [ ] r.ts lr.han, S/o. Late Sri trilirza Jafar Ali Khan. Agt;d ,ebout 61 r ,:ss, R/o 22-7 -454, Purani Haveli, Hyderabad . RespondenURespondents No.2/D1 in SA and l.A.NO.2 OF 2024

14. Raheemunn sa years,occ F c,u Malakpet Ht'cle : egum, W/o. Sri IVlir Siddique Hussain. Aged atrout 60 , rhbld, R/o. A Block, 5th Floor, Akbar Tower:; Eiaitul Noor, ;::ad. ..RespondenURespondents No.3/D -3 in Slt,and Bl|3r?

15. Tahira Be5lu r , : ied per LRs Nos.18-21) . RespondenURespondent No.4/Defendant ]tlo.4 in SA and l,A.NO.2 0F 2024

16. Amina Begu r . Household. Il tr 1i,/o. Late Sri Mir Liyaqat Hussain Khan, Agerl 7 7 years,Occ. l-2-268lAl1l15lA, Road No.3, Banjara Hills Hl,derabad. ...Respond e rtr'Respondent No.S/Defendant No.S in SA and l.A.NO.2 OF 2024 17 .lllirza Mohd Al. Road, Moore rs tt colony opp l(,. t (i-ran, S/o. Late Sri Mirza Jafar Ali Khan, R/o. 2{r 1, S Lenola r,,,n, New Jersey- 08057, USA, also residing trt 42-600, M.J :, haiguda depot, Malkajgiri-500040 , RespondenURespondent No.6/Defendant 1tlo.6 in SA and l.A.NO.2 0F 2024

18.lt/irza Abbas llt i,;ain Khan, Late Sri Mirza Jafar Ali Khan, r\gec 64 years,Occ S e rr r ,:. R/o. 23-2-359, Baitul Noor, [/ogalpura, I lyc erabad ...RespondenURespondent No.7/Defendant No.7 in SA and I.A-NO-2 OF

19. Mir Sarfaraz Hussain, S/o. Mir Jahangir Hussain, Aged about 58 years, Occ. Service, R/o.8-3-190, SR Nagar, Hyderabad.

20. Mir Askari Hussain, S/o. Mir Sartaraz Hussain, Aged about 30 years,Occ. Service,R/o. 8-3-190, SR Nagar, Hyderabad.

21. Nikhat Fathima, Wo. Abbas Raga, Aged about 28 years,Occ. Service, R/o. 8- 3-190, SR Nagar, Hyderabad.

22. trlir Amanath Hussain, S/o. I\Iir Sarfaraz Hussain, Aged about 26 years, Occ. Nil, R/o. 8-3-190, SR Nagar, Hyderabad. ...Respondents/LRs of Respondent& Defendant No'4 in SA and |.A.NO.2 OF 2024

23. K. Anuradha, Wo Sri K.R.K. Reddy, Aged about 54 years,Occ. Business, R/o 8-3-315/9/8, I\Iaruthi Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad - 500 045. (Respondent No.22 is impleaded as per the orders dt.30-07-2020 passed in lA No.893/2018) ...Respondents in SA and |.A.NO.2 OF 2024 lA NO: 3 OF 2024 Petition under Section 32 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the Deponent herein to represent the PetitioneriAppellant herein in the capacity of the authorized representative of the Petitioner/Appellant as per General Powered Attorney dated 1 0/05/2024 on the file of Honourable court. lA NO: 2 OF 2024 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 1 190 days in filing of the appeal Counsel for the Appellant :Ms. SNEHA BHOGLE Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : SRI SHYAM S AGRAWAL Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : SRI M V PRATAP KUMAR The Court deliveded the following: COMMON JUDGMENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHIT)TTY I.A.NO.2 0F 2024 IN/AND SECOND APPEAL NO.364 OF 2024 COMMON.IUT)( MENT: Thts S,:,:c tl Appeal rs filed aggrieyed by the j ,td qment and decree dalr:cl )t )1.'2021 in A.S.No.2 43 of 2OO9 passt 11 bl learned singie XXv \cl tional Chief Judge , City Civil Court , Jyderabad, confirminp, the j r:gment and decree dated 15.12.1969 irL Cr.S.No.84 of 1967 on thr: I I .r of VI Senior Civil Judge, City Civi. Court at H),derabac.. A:; I 'rere is delay of 1196 days in prt.ferrrrg ,hc Appeal, the appella:t frtr r LA.No.2 of 2024 to condone the ,lel:rr,.

2. Hear-<l NIs Sneha Bhogle, learned counsel lor rp tellant, Sri Shyam S.Agrlr.r'r , Lcarned counscl for respondent Nos.1 ar d 2 and Sri M.V.Pratap Iiurr , r-. Icarned counscl for respondent no.,li].

3. Witl-.ortt t-r rrring to the merits o[ thc appeal, it is rp tr-opriate to Itrst consiler ri , l.A.No.2 of 2024 filed for condonai i()n of delav of 1 196 days in p r-, ..,rrring the appeal.

4. The li:ar tr r counsel for the petitioner/ appellanr crn:ended that he is the r\gre:r':rrt of Sale-cum GPA holder of r(lspcn(le :rt Nos.3 to 1O herein, u h o ;ubsequcntl5r obtained final dect-ec pr.oc eedings on 05.11.2OO7 in ( :i.No,84 ot 1967 and thereaftcr, thc... e:x,:cuted sale deed in his fai,;t on 16.11.2007. It is furthcr averr-ed th:it respondent Nos.1 and 2 he r in challenged the final decree deLtecl I b.l1.2OO7 by ,.i / 2 Itling A.S.No.243 of 2OO9 and the first Appellate Court, vide judgment and decree, dated 29.Ot.2021 allowed the Appeal Suit. Challenging the judgment and decree dated,29.OL.2O2I, the appellant herein filed the present Second Appeal and along with I.A.No.2 of 2024 to condone the delay of 1196 days in preferring Second Appeat.

5. 'Ihe learned counsel for petitioner/ appcllant further contendecl that the first Appellate Court passed the judgment and decree on

29.01.2021, by the time the country was affected by Covid pandemic and a nationwide lockdown was announced by the Government of India from 25 .O3.2O2O; that petitioner was sevcrely affected by the second wave of Covid during February, 2027 and that he got to know about passing of judgment and decree dated 29.O 1.2 O2l in Appeal Suit, only in May, 2024 ancl he was suffering with prolonged illness and thus, there was a delay of 1196 days in filir-rg the present Second Appeal, which was neilher deliberatc nor wanted. Learned counsel further contended that the petitioner has a good case in Second Appeal and if he is not allowed to contest the same, he would be put to irreparable loss and damage ald therefore prayed to condone the delay of 1 196 days in preferring Second Appeal.

6. Per contra, according to Iearned counsel for respondent Nos.l and 2, there is inordinate delay of 1196 days in preferring the appeal and the pelitioner/ appellant failed to offer valid, cogent reasons for condonation of inordinate delay of 1196 days, except saying that he 3 was severol\r a 1l r :tecl by the second wave of Covid durin1.l February, 2O2l anc tLir he was suffering with prolonge C i lness and complications rt ' L .rftcr knowing about passing of impr,Lgne l jurlgment in Ma1', 2()?-4, -. ' lilecl the present appeal. He further con'.ended that the medic:rl cert 1 :ate produced by the petitioner.,/ appt llar t is created and fabric:atr:rL l , r the purpose of the present casc. I t is linally contended [1-r a t . - c application for condonation ol' de a r s devoid of any merit irnc I tl r rs, the same is liable to be dismissed 7 . Peru s'a I ,t thc record would disclose that A;rpea I Snit was decreed orL 2'l t- L2009 and u.hereas, the Second i\ppci:1 r'",eLs lllcd on

08.08,202'1 rr i r dclay of I 196 days in preferring tire p-e: en1 appeal. The reasons ioL' 'rc inordinate delay of 1196 days, as m,:ntroned in the affidavi.l. r:'r eat petitioner/ appellant was severcly : ff< ctcd by the second war, r: cI' . ,rvid during February, 2O2l and u,as ;u.fcrurg with prolonged il1r e :; :u'rd he came to know about the pass ng of judgment and decrr:,: r1a .:cl 29.O1..2OO9 in A.S.No.243 of 2OC9 and he immediatel.,. li r: [he present Appcal. To substantiate tlre cont.ention, petitioner har s I :,d Medical Certificate dated 15.05.!1024 issued bv Dr,Vinod (l ravrL I

8. Perusal o the medical record discloses that F et tioner was suffering liotn : r ronic obstructive pulmonary disealie a nd chronic arthritis sinc: l period of tu c supervisio:t o I ri r ':,t five years and he was on oxvger: su pport for a ',:ars and six months and was lLnde r constant I ,h),sician for the last three years. Exc e rt mentioning !r-I1*i \ *r:":t 4 that he was suffering from chronic obstmctive pulmonary disease and chronic arthritis for the last five years and that he was on oxygen support for a period of two years six months, details of medical report and treatment given to the petitioner and also the dates were not mentioned in the said certificate. In considere d opinion of this court, medical certificate is vague and is bereft of details as to when the petitioner was admitted in the hospital and treatment given to him and also the medical certificate is not supported by any discharge summary or any other details. [t is pertinent to mention that except medical certificate, no other reports are filcd. Thercfore, learned counsel for the respondents has specifically contended that medical report. dated 15.05.2024 is a fabricated and created only for the purpose of filing present appeal. In considered opinion of this Court, there is a considerable force in the submission of the learned counsel for respondents. In the absence of specific period of hospitalization, dates of treatment given to the petitioner, reports etc.

9. The reasons stated in thc afhdavit filed in support of delay application are that petitioner/ appellant he was severely affected by the second wave of Covid during February, 2027 and he was suffering with prolonged illness and after knowing about passing of impugned order during the month of May, 2024 in Appeal Suit, he frled the present appeal along with I.A., to condone the delay of i 196 days in preferring the appeal and the said delay was occurred due to the above reasons only. Perusal of record would show that appeal was l -t.. 5 hled on 08.16. ilr la and admittedly, A.S.No.243 of 2009 u as decreed on 29.01.2C1O') : r.l thus, there was a delay of 1196 da"'s irL preferring the present ar;r, r I However, no explanation has kreen <,fft red for the inordinate clela-r' . l i 196 days in ftling appeal.

10. In cor-tsicle -:c[ opinion of this Court, the reasons of fr:red by the appellant Ior crr lcination of delay does not insprre the r:cnfidence of this Court sirr,:e -rrr plausible explanation has bee'n ,ril :rt d for huge inordinate ciclav l i 196 days in filing appeal. I 1. In Basaw rraj and another v. Special Land lr,cquisition Officerr, thr: I{ -,r :rLe Supreme Court held as under "1r.'fh: interll e tE so tang c in\).1t( (. 1 ha; rr'c n ca$ al (1 Sltqan,.L iL S.l, \. ( ,1 12 It i-. ha-sJr1i I its t tqor- t- to i{l( r (1 flo\\'i1itl i r por\ ef ro dis t'es s r caltJc l il colt:-t :tits The 1e SrLl bur il ii corlsrs,( lt fact rr Li, 1 : :pression "sufhcient cause" should be given : li ;cral .:)n to ensure that substantial justice is done lrLrt only . negLigence, inaction or lack of bona firle.s 'onntt be. ) tlte pqrtA concerned, whether or not slrffici,,.t cause i - rrrished, can be decided on the facts of a trni :ular r ) straitjacket formula is possible. (Vide ,,1,J. i ri..r n a1 v. .lf)02) 1 SCC 535 : AIR 2OO2 SC 10Ol iLncl 1ttn Nath ,,.r.Lhan So.o [(2002) 3 SCC 195: AIR 2OOi' SC 1.]-)ll l . setfled Iegal proposition that law oI lrn.ritzritn mar rc. a particLllar party but it has to be a::plicrl rrrth all .hen the statute so prescribes. The court has lI p:ter 1 -(. period of limitation on equitable grounds. '\ r.:sult r a statutory provision is never an evil. A cor rt hi s no :,nore that provision to relieve what it corsicftrs a rr.rlting from its operation." The statutory provis or-r rraY (r;hip or inconvenience to a particular part" bu the |o choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the srme. '. raxim dura lex sed lex which means "the la,v is hard Le 1ar,v", stands attracted in such a situati(n [1 ]ras i been held that, "inconvenience is no1" rL le< isive : considered while interpreting a statute.

15. Tl e I ,, on the lssue can be summarised to the e mi.rt that u,here a c r.;e has been presented in the court beyond linitation, thc apJ,li tL has to explain the court as lo \iha: r,,as rhe 'zor:1r+1 scc sr \464 1l -- 6 "ou.i "sufhcient cause, which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach tt.r" *itt i., rimitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bona hde on his part in the facts and circumitances of the case, or found to l.u9_n9t acted diligenfly or remained inactive, there cannot be a justihed ground to condone the delay. No couit could be justified in condoning such an_inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The apptication is to bc iccijed onlv rvithin the parameters raid down by this court in regard ro the condonation of delay. [n case there was no sufhcient ca]use to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the le;islature."

12. In Postmaster General and others vs. Living Media India Limited and anothel, Hon,ble Apex Court having considered catena of decisions, including pundlik Jalam patil (dead) by LRs. Vs. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium project and anothe13, \,\.herein it was held that, "17..-.... The evidence on record suggesls neglecl of its own right for long time in preferring appeals. Thc courl cannot enquirc iuto belated and stale claims on the ground of equity. Delay defeats equity. The court helps those who are vigilant ani "do noislumber over their rights". and observed that taking very lenient view in condonrn g the dela v, particularly, on the part of the Government and Government Undertaking, would not be proper and observed as under:_ "29. It needs no restatement at our hands that the object for fixing timelimit for litigation is based on public policy hxing a lifespan foi legal remedy for the purpose of general welfare. ttrey are meant to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but avail their legal remedies promptly. Salmond in his Jurisprudence states that the laws come to the assistance of the vigilant and not of the sleepy- 30. Public interest undoubtedly is a paramount considcration in exercising the courts' discretion wherever conferred upon it by the relevant statutes. Pursuing stale claims and multipticity of proceedings in no manner subserves pubtic interest. prompt and timely payment of compensation to the landlosers facilitating their rehabilitation/resettlement is equally an integral part o1 public policy. Public interest demands that the State or the beneliciary of acquisition, as the case may be, should not be allowed to indulgl in any act to unsettle the settled legal rights accrued in law by ' 1zorz1 : scc so: r (zooa) rz s&q+a \ ,7 resor-_lne (] derivrrLg Ltr fraudulerrl r acquired ir pubii: tr tcr rvhile cr:rr: unde- Scc ti courts 11 i;,r not :x'n'3 ( interle rcr L rr any lir c)f e ' o[ purlic t :r .roidable litigation unless the claimants al-( ljr-li t\ of t fir to which they are otherwise not entitle1, in any i nner. One should not forget the basic fact that lvl Iat is r )t the land but the livelihood of the landlostrrr; !'hese ! t parameters ought to be kept in mind by tho c )urts jng the discretion dealing with the appLicetirn filed 5 of the Limitation Act. Dragging the lan1l,)sers to vears after the termination of legal proceedings yould r.r public interest. Settled rights cannot rc Lgirlly r -L by condoning inordinate deJay witho-rt lL errt )eing r l)ranation of such delal' on the ground of itr"olverent ' lue. It serves no public interest.'

13. In Grlvr rnment of Maharashtra (Water Resources Department) r 3p.by Executive Engineer vs. Borse Brothers Engineers and Contractors Private Limiteda, Hcn'bl,: Supreme Courl held as i r ler: "63. and nrl in can, tl] th l mind tiral tl havi: : r'r' r-r i :_ the fir; l rLr frL case in which a party has otherwise trctei l,orr rrfide ncgligent manner, a short delay beyond suclr periocl r;cretion of the court, be condoned, alu,al s re-rirg in orher side of the picture is that the opposite :r. rt] may lroth in equitl and justice, $rhat may rro\\, 5( tc st bl' ; rnaction, negligence or laches."

11. Con sirl r:' r 1 Lhe facts o[ the case and the legal p,rsit,irrr and also in vies, of :.rc l:r that the reasons for condonation of 1n,)r([inale delay of 1196 cli1! s rl sulficient ,rrL s(l rreferring appeal are not properl.,r exp i1i 1ed and no 'ras been shown for such delay, tne I A.Nt.2 of 2024 is liable Lo br lr .-nissed and rs accordingly dismissed. -)onsecluently, thc Second A r;rr r I No.364 of 2024 stands rejected.

15. Pen<lin 3 n a(zazD 6 scc '41;i:) ,;r'ellaneous applications if any sha1l st. n(. closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- \ l K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINl'REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER i I To, 'l ilil*" Adrli rc ' al chief Judge city civil court at Hyderab.rd(with records, 2. The V Senror Oi ,yg^S:, gltY Civit Court, Hyderabad(Wiil- r:crrrds, if anv) 3. one CC tc, trrt;t I ,rrH,{ sHoGLe, nJr*"t.'itjpucf 4 one cC to sFlt s r.ryAr\/t S AGRA-wAL-il;;""!i" 1oeuc1 5. Two CD Copir::; ADK gr, w HIGH COURI' DATED:17102'.1 lA25 coMMoN JtJTtTGMENT l.A.No.2 of 2ll',',4 ln/and SA.No.36!, srl, ,.Q24 . H5 S' \\ 4; 6 3 ( (o( z o +. .1 J 2:l fl,iY itr6 t Sir,- r 1iE :::___ -., J DISMISSINCi I l-lE l.A.No.2 of 2024 And REJECTING T HE SA.No.364 of 2024 d" 6 a b