High Court of A.P., in Gangarapu Karenna v. jami Karuvu and anotherl, wherein it was observed that the Court below ought to

Petition uncler sie ;r on 151 CPC praying that in the circumslarces stated in the affidavit filed in sur rort of the petition, the High court may b': pleased to receive Medical ce :rtif r ;ate, dated 11 12.2023, issued by tt4eg ra Hospital, Shankarpally, Ranga fie :]dy District. Counsel for the Petitior er:SRl. B BAL REDDY Counsel for the Respor dent Nos' 1 to 3: SRl. GURU RAJ JOSHI The Court made the fol owing: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.9 OF 2024 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 28.11.2023 in IA.No.681. of 2023 in AS (SR) No.3515 of 2023 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar,

2. Heard Sri B.Bal Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Gururaj Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 No representation on behalf of respondent Nos.10 & 11 despite service of notice.

3. Brief factual matrix of the case is that petitioner herein filed a suit in O.S.No.132 of 2006 on the file of Senior Civil Judge at Chevella against the respondents herein'seeking partition of the suit schedule property and the said suit was dismissed by the trial Court aide jtdgment and decree dated 05.12.2022. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner herein preferred appeal uide A.S.(SR).No.3515 of 2023 along with an application-T.A-No-681 of 2023 for condonation of delay of 18 days in filing the said appeal. The first Appellate Cottrtoide impugned order dated 28-11-12023 *- dismissed I.A.No.681 of 2023 on the ground that except saying 2 I,NA, J aRt'No.g qf2021 that due to i i- 't:alth, petitioner could not approach h:r couusel and file an ,r .:,1 ,,al within a period of limitation, tto n;Ltelial was placed on r'('( o I in support of the said contentiot't. Ae1;ri,:ved by the same, pres( rr t Civil Revision Petition is filed. 4 Lear:n: -1 , ,runsel for petitioner contended tha t pltitioner herein coull r,:rt prefer an appeal within tinre as s 1e was suffering w ith 'Lcalth issues. He further contended 1he t along with the pr,:r;e't revision, an application in I.A.No.'t of 2021 is filed to recci'.,r thc Medical Certificate, dated 11,.12.'.2C23. which shows tha t tl r petitioner was suffering with u;'iralY tract inJection will i ,r;tritis and the doctors advised her to take rest for three wet:ks j', rrn 09.02.2023. However, said certificittrl IVas not filed before ,lre .rst Appellate Court. It is further conte'nc:ed that valuable riglrr s .,1: the petitioner in respect of immovabl: p roPerty are invol'rec, t r,:r'efore, the first Appellate Court ougltt :o have taken a lib,:;.,r view while dealing with an appli(ration for condonation of 'r:lay

5. In suppo I of his contention, learned counsel for pe titioner relied upon tlr rlecision of a learned single JudEe of er stwhile I 3 I,NA. ] CRP.No.9 oJ2021 High Court of A.P., in Gangarapu Karenna v. jami Karuvu and anotherl, wherein it was observed that the Court below ought to have displayed a somewhat liberal approaoh in dealing with the application for condonation of delay. Under Section 5 of Limitation Act, "1963, a fair amount of discretion is vested in the Courts while dealing with such applications and the Courts should be neither too liberal nor too technical and pedantic in dealing with the applications for condonation of delay. In the saicl case, there was a delay of 13 days in filing appeal. Initially, the first Appellate Court dismissed the said application on the ground that mere ignorance is not an excuse and that nothing prevented him from approaching his counsel and filing the appeal in time, and on revisiory this Court allowed the revision ancl condoned the delay. The learned counsel for petitioner finally prayed to allow the revision and set aside the impugned order.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 contended that except saying that due to ill-health of the petitioner, the delay was occurred, no document or material was placed on record and therefore, learned first Appellate Court has ' zorr 14)Alo srs 4 LNA, J CRt'.No-9 of2021 rightly disnr s: (',1 the application and no grounc is made out to interfere 11,i ly ' 1,,3 impugned order 7 . Perusa [ ," the record would disclose that peLiticr-re'r filed a suit in O.S.|Jr.132 of 2006 on the file of Senio;' Civ i ludge at Chevella, R,r r1 ,, Reddy District, for partition of the suit schedule property arul l:re said suit was dismissed zridt' jurll;m eni and decree clakrrl )5.12.2022. Aggrieved by the sami:, p,3titi6ns1 preferred ap rt : l in A.S.(SR) No.3575 of 2023 before th: I'rincipal District an,l :,.rssions Judge, Ranga Reddy, along 'v111-t ,r-, application f'rrondonation of delay 18 days in f ilin5; the' appeal, however. tf e I r;t Appellate Couri has dismissed the' trpplication on the grourt.l 'hat no material is placed in proof of itl-lLealth of the petitionel f r condoning the clelay of 18 days

8. In thir;, ( 'ntext, it is relevant to refer to the )udgrnerrt of the Hon'ble Sir: -reme Court in N.Balakrisfunrt Vs. M.Krishrumnr !n12. 1n 1'rur"in at paras 9 and 10 it s held as hereunder "9. It is lriomatic that condonation of delay is a tn rtt:r o[ d scr :lion of the Court. Section 5 of the Limitt tic,n Att ,l x r not sav that such discretion can be exercised ' AIR t9g8 Spec i. I ( (iurt 3222 5 LNA, J CRP.Nq.9 of 2024 only if the delay is whtin a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes dealy of shortest range may be uncondonable due to want- bf acceptable explanation, whercas in certain other cases delay of very long range can be condoned as the explanahion thereof is satisfactory. Once the Court accepts the explanation as sufficient it is the result of positive exercise of discretion and normally the superior Court should not disturb such finding, much less in revisional jurisdiction, unless the exercise of discretion was on wholly untenable grounds or arbitrary or perverse. But it is a different matter when the first Court refuses to condone the <lelay. In such cases, the superior court would bc free to consider the cause shown for the delay afresh and it is open to such superior Court to come to its own finding even untrammeled by the conclusion of the lower Court.

10. The reason for such a different stance is thus; The primary function of a court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice. Time limit fixed for approaching the Court in different situations is not because on the expiry of such time a bad cause would transform into a good cause."

8.1. In the said juclgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory l 6 LNA, J Clt P.No.g oI2021 ^. tactics, tut s:r I their remedy promptly; that the lvorlls "r;ufficient cause" unck,t' 'iection 5 of the Limitation Act shoul,i 'ecelve a liberal cons t:r- . Lion so as to advance substantial justice

9. Applv ir 1, the proposition laid down bv tlre Hon'ble Supreme (irt r t in N.Balakrishnan's case (citerl sup'ra 1, in d1s instant r:as: t is to be seen that the petitiont:r lta:; |rsflu6sd medical r:eltif i rlte evidencing her ill-health, dut: to r^,hjch delay occurred ir, p , ,ferring the appeal. Therefore, it is aricn Latic that 'sufficierrt (rirlr .:)' has been shown by the petitionet' to condone delay in preli: )ng the appeal

10. I\:r -he it is relevant to note that since the suit vas filed for partition r the suit schedule ProPerty, substar.rtial rights of the partjes arl nvolved and as such, to safeguard the rnl.erests of the party ur p. r:suing their remedy before the Clourt cf [aw, this Court deerns appropriate to condone the delay tr l iling the Appeal irs :;rLf i,.ient cause/plausible explanation is offert:d by the petitionr:r

11. It i: ;e :l led principle of law that right of appe,a l b't a party cannot be lh nvn out at the threshold purelr. :)t') ,.echnical grounds, espe, ally for a short delay of 18 days. 7 LNA, J CRP.No.9 of 2024

12. In the light of the above, this Court is of the corsidered opinion that the first Appellate Court ought to have allowed the application by taking liberal view since the vhluable rights of the petitioner in immovable property are involved. However, the first Appellate Court failed to exercise the discretion vested with it and thus, the impugned order is liable to be set aside

13. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 28.17.2023 in I.A.No.681 ot 2023 tn A.S.(SR) No.3515 of 2023 is set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.681 of 2023 in A.S.(SR).No.3575 of 2023 stands allowed and the first Appellate Court is directed to entertain the appeal filed by the petitioner and dispose of the same on merits. There shall be no order as to costs

74. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPYII SD/. MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTI {iorr,"=* To, Nagar. 1 . The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L. B 2. One CC to SRl. B BAL REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. GURU RAJ JOSHT Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CD Copies. PN/ HIGH COURT DATED'.2810312025 ORDER CRP.No.9 of 2024 ALLOWING THE CI\IIt REVISION PETITION 3/ -: :1- r> :.-ra . ltrl ,c .:i (, i 2:t 'iA .+ t gO Dl: ., -- \s:l: