Limited and anotherr, Hon,ble Apex court having considered catena vs Departmentl,- rep.by Executive Engineer vs. Borse Brothers

...RESPONDENTS/ Respondents / Defendants No.1 & 2 in both lA NO: 1 OF 2024 the affidavit filed in support of the p"iition, in" iign Cor.t ,nr/lu;;; Petition under section i 5 r cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in " condone the delay of 154 days in preferring the above said second appeal in the interest of justice. IA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court ma,y be pleased to pass an injunction order restraining the Respondents No. i and his henchmen or any other person claiming through him from alienating the suit schedule property, pending disposal of the present second appeal lA NO: 3 OF 2024 Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circ;umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend the operation of Decree and Judgment in A.s. No. d of zozs dateo 1510-212024 passed by the Hon'ble principil District Judge at siddipet thereby confirming the Judgment and Decree in o.S. No. 142 0f io13 dated 3oto1t2o23 passed by the Hon'ble Principal senior civil Judge at siddipet pending disposal of the present second appeal. Counsel for the Appellant in S.A. and Petitioner in l.A.No. ,lot 2024: SRI M. S. ACHYUTH BHARTHWAJ Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 in both : SRI R. DHEERAJ SINGH The Court delivered the following Common Order : HON'BLE SRI WSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY I.A.No.l of 2o24 In And SECOND APPEAL No.426 OF 2024 COMMON ORDER: This application is filed to condone the delay of 154 days in filing the Appeal challenging the judgment and decree datcd 15.02.2024 in A.S.No.09 of 2023 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Siddipet

2. Heard Sri M.S. Achyuth Bharathwaj, learned counsel. for appellant and Sri R. Dheeraj Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.1

3. Petitioner herein is defendant No.3 and respondent No.1 IS plaintiff and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are defendauts before thc trial Court

4. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff, filed suit in O.S.No.142 of 2013 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge at Siddipet and the same was decreed by judgment dated 30.01.2023. Aggricved by the said judgment and decree, appellant herein preferred A.S.No.09 of 2023 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Siddipet and the first appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 75.02.2024 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the decrce passed by the trial \' ./ 2' Court. Aggrievecl by the same, the present second apl,eal is filed along \ , ^.r..oru'!f ,on>., with application for condonation of the delay of 154 rlays in filing the appeal.

5. In the affidavit filed in support of the delay appri:ation, petirioner averred that judgment in the appeal was pronounced t:n 15.02.2024 and the application was filed on 21,.03.2024 and the decree rvas furnished on the appellant on 22.03.2024; that petitioner met I-Lis counsel and entrustecl the matter for filing second appeal and the same was macle ready at the end of April, 2024,bfi the petitioner fell:;ick due to fcver and the doctor advised her to take complete bed re:;t, therefore she could not take immediate steps to file appeal; that during summer vacation, close rclative of the petitioner expired and after attending the funeral she again fell sick due to which she had to again take bed rcst till July, 2024 ancT after gaining shength, she filed the present second appeal along with an application for condonation of 154 days. It is further averred that as substantiar rights in immovabl,: properties arc involved and as the petitioner has fair chance of su,.:ceeding in the appeal, delay may be condoned and that no prejudice u,ill be caused to the respondent.

6. Respondent No.1 filed counter denying the alleltations made in the affidavit and contencrcd that no proper reasons have been shown for \z/ I 3 condonation of abnormal delay of 154 days, and also failed to file LNA. J lA No- t oI2O24 ln/ and S.A No-426 ol2024 supporting documents in proof of her illness; that the reasons assigned by the petitioner are vague, unronvincing, which demonstrate clear negligence on the part of the petitioner in approaching this Court, therefore, delay application is liable to be dismissed

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that trial Court as well as the first appellate Court has erroneously decreed thc suit and petitioner has very good chance of succeeding in second appeal and since substantial rights in immovable property are involved, a liberal approach may be taken in condoning the delay. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that it is always appropriate and proper that matters be decided on merits rather than throwing out at threshold on technicalities. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that delay of 154 days in filing appeal is occasioned only because of illness and death of close relative of the petitioner and there is no deliberate or want on delay and thus, prayed to allow the delay application.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contended that except saying that petitioner fell sick in April and J une, 2024, no material is placed on record in support of her contention. He further cor-rt@ed that reasons stated by the petitioner for condonation of delay 1 In/ a,. s.A No.426 of 2o2\, 4 are vague/ unconvincing and the same cannot be considered as sufficient cause and there are clear laches and neglige^ce on the part of the petitioner, hcnce, petitioner is not entitled to seek i,dulgence of this Court for condonarion of delay and prayed to dismiss tJre application. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 relietl upon the judgment of thc Hon'ble Supreme court in r.a.nka venkatesutarru (Dead) bg Lrs, l/s. State of And.hra pradesh and otherst wherein it was held that, 364 "e. ...... Once a ualuable right has accn ted- in fauour of one partA as a result of the failure of the other party to explain the delay by shouting sufficient cause and. its outrt conduct, it will be unreasonable to take- atuay that ight on the mere asking of the applicant, particalartg uthen the delag is d.irectly a result of negligence, defaull or inactton of . the party. ,Iustice must be done to both parties equallg". 7L. It is appropriate to examine the legal position governing condonation of delay. In Llnion of India and another o. [alungir Byramji leejeebhoy (D) through his LR (sLp (Cittit) No.21096 of 2019 dntert 03.04.2024), the l{on'ble Apex Court by referring to the judgment of the r(2011)4 scc363 LNA, J l-A No I ol2o24 ht/ dnd S.A No 426 oI2024 same Court rn Esha Bhattachariee a. Managing Committee of 5 Raghunathpur Nalar Acailemy €t Others K2013) 12 SCC 6491, held that " delay slrculd not be excused as a matter of generosity. Rendering substantial justice is not lo cnuse prejudice to the opposite party".

12. [n Basawaraj and another v. Special Land Acquisition Officer2, the Ilon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "11. The expression "sufficient cause" should be given a liberal interpretation to ensure that substantial justice is done, but only so long as negligence, inaction or lack of bona fdes cannot be tmputed to the partA concerned, whether or not sufficient cause has been furnished, can be decided on the facts of a particular case and no straitjacket formula is possible. ("lide Madanlal v. Shgamtal l(2OO2l I SCC 535 : AIR 2002 SC 1001 and Rdm Nath Srzov. Gobardhctn Sao l(2OO2l 3 SCC 195 : AIR 2002 SC 12011 .)

12. Ir is a settled legal proposition that law oI limitation may harshty affect a particular party but it has to be applied with alt its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. "A result flowing from a statutory provision is never an evil. A court has no power to ignore that provision to relieve what it considers a distress resulting from its operation.' The statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same. The legat maxim dura lex sed lex which means "the law is hard bur it is the [aw", stands attracted in such a situation. It has consistently been held that, "inconvenience is not" a decisive factor to be considered while interpreting a statute. 'zzors 1ro1 scc sr I t. tn/ ot\ S A-No 426 of 2o2a' 6

15. The law on the issue can be summarised to the eftect that where q case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to wfat was the "sufficient cause" which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within rimitation. In case a part]' is found to be negligent, or for want of l)ona fide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligentry or remained inactive, there rannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The apptication is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this court in regard to the condonation ofdelay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay v,,ithout any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts .to passing an order in violation of the statutory provis.ons and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislatrrre., 13. In posthaster ceneral and others vs. Living Media India Limited and anotherr, Hon,ble Apex court having considered catena of decisions, includ ing pundlik Jalam patil ldeact) by LRs. Vs. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium project and another4, held that, "17....... Thc evidence on record suggests neglect of its own right for long time in preferring appeals. The court cannot enquire into belated and stale claims on the ground of equity. Delal. defeats equity. The court helps those who are vigilant and "do not slumber over their rights".

14. In Government of Maharashtra (Water Resources Departmentl,- rep.by Executive Engineer vs. Borse Brothers '1zor2; : scc se: '(zoog) rz sc aae :; ,^r..r.lit;i" In/ and S A No-426 of2024 I 7 Engineers and Contractors Private Limited5, Honble Supreme Court held as under: "63. ..-.-. In a ht case in which a party has otherwise acted bona fide and not in a negligent manner, a short delay beyond such period can, in the discretion o[ the court, be condoned, always bearing in mind that the other side of the picture is that the opposite party may have acquired both in equity and justice, what may now be lost by the first party's inaction, negligence or laches."

15. A perusal of the record would disclose that impugned judgment under challenge passed on 75.02.2024 and the petitioner got certified copy of judgment on 23.03.2024 and appeal was filed on

30.09.2024 along with delay of 154 days and the reasons set out by the petitioner are that appeal was ready at the end of April, 2024 however, she fell sick in the month of April, 2024 and again in the month of June, 2024 and ultimately, after gaining strength, filed tl-re appeal in the month of September, 2024. lt is also evident that as per her own admission, appeal was ready in the month of April, 2024, but due her ill health, she filed the appeal in September, 2024 and no other reasons have been assigned for the delay from June, 2024 to September, 2024. lt is also evident from the record that except asserting that petitioner fell sick in April and June, no material is placed on record to substantiate her contention. Therefore, reasons assigned by the petitioner are not ' 1zozr1 o scc aoo ra.No. r )r /n/ \

5.A.No.426 ol202+ convincing and infact shows clear negligence and default on her part in 8 approaching this Court. 16. In view of above discussion and legal position' in considered opinion of this court, the reasons offered by the appellants for condonation of delay does not inspire the conhdence of this Court since no plausible explanation has been offered for inor<linate delay of 154 days in filing application and no sufficient cause h€rs been shown for such delay. Therefore, the delay application is devoid of merits and thus accordingly dismissed' 17. [n view of the dismissal of the delay petition' secorrd Appeal fails and accordingly dismissed There shall be no order as t'l costs' Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed' Sd/. K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR -=- //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal District Judge at Siddipet, Siddipet Dist' 2. The Principal Senior Civil Judge, Siddipet ' Siddipet Dist' 3. One CC to SRl. M S ACHYUTH BHARTHWAJ Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRl. R. DHEERAJ SINGH Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD CoPies k-UYPSL w i I B 1HE ST4 ,s. o (t ) 2OJUN [M q c ) t1 ,r, r:.q p/, -t- HIGH COURT DATED:2110412O25 COMMON ORDER r.A. NO. 10F 2024 IN/AND SECOND APPEAL NO: 426 OF 2024 DISMISSING THE I.A. NO.1 OF 2024 AND SECONDAPPEAL WITHOUT COSTS 4-a ?(nk Kr ;t6)5