Allowed

Garaga Prabhakar Rao, East Godavari Dist v. Garaga Venkata Rao, East Godavari Dist

Andhra Pradesh HC22 Sept 2024CRP/2365/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court condoned the 35-day delay in filing an appeal due to illness. The Court held that the trial Court erred in dismissing the condonation application by insisting on strict adherence to the stated illness, adopting a liberal approach instead.

What did the court decide?

The Order dated 06.07.2011 in I.A.No.885 of 2011 is set aside. The delay in filing appeal is treated as condoned.

Garaga Prabhakar Rao, East Godavari… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

MONDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

o'
m
l( im .n u O}

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2365 OF 2024

¶7

Petition under Section 115 of C.P.C aggrieved by the Order, Dated 06.07.2011 passed in I.A NO. 885 of 2011 in A.S.S.R NO. 10907 of 2010 on the file of the District Judge, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District.

¶8

Between;

¶9

Garaga Prabhakar Rao, S/o Pattabhi Rarna Rao Hindu aged 51 years. Cultivation, R/o Munagala Village, Korukonda Mandal East Godavari District

¶10

...Petitioner/ Petitioner/Appellant

¶11

AND

¶12

Garaga Venkata Rao, S/o Pattabhi Rama Rao Hindu, aged³⁸ years. Cultivation, D.N.7-108 R/o Korukonda Village, East Godavari District.

¶13

...Respondent/ Respondent/ Respondent

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Mangena Sree Rama Rao

¶15

Counsel for the Respondents: Sri P Rajesh Babu

¶16

The Court made the following Order :

¶17

APHC011542002012

¶18

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶19

[3460]

¶20

MONDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶21

PRESENT

¶22

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION N O:

¶23

Between:

¶24

Garaga Prabhakar Rao, East Godavari Dist

¶25

...PETITIONER

¶26

AND

¶27

Garaga Venkata Rao East Godavari Dist

¶28

...RESPONDENT

¶29

Counsel for the Petitioner;

¶30

1.MANGENASREE RAMA RAO

¶31

Counsel for the Respondent:

¶32

1.PRAJESH BABU

¶33

The Court made the following:

¶34

¶35

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION gR NO:&

¶36

ORDER:

¶37

The present Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the Order dated 06.07.2011 in I.A.No.885 of 2011 in ASSR No. 10907 of 2010 passed by the District Judge, Rajahmundry, East Godavari^District. 2. The petitioner is the Appellant and he filed an appeal with a delay of 35 days. An application i.e., I.A.No.885 of 2011 was^{filedtocondonethe} delay. The said application was dismissed. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition.

¶38

Heard both sides. 4. The explanation offered by the petitioner was that as he was suffering from viral infection and typhoid and was^{advisedtotakerestand} therefore, he could not file the appeal in the prescribed^time.The trial Court had dismissed the application on the ground that the medical certificate filed by the petitioner shows that he was^{treatedforJaundice} from 24.09.2010 to 09.11.2010, but not for viral infection and typhoid mentioned in the affidavit filed by the petitioner.

The trial Court missed the fact that the petitioner was suffering from an ailment albeit a different ailment and that there was a reason for delay in filing appeal. The Appellate court should not have been rigid in its approach and should have adopted a liberal approach to condone the delay especially in cases where the delay is marginal. This Court is of the opinion that the delay of 35 days in filing the appeal should be condoned.

¶43

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the Order of the trial Court dated 06.07.2011 in I.A.No.885 of 2011 is set aside. No order as to costs.

¶44

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶45

//TRUE COPY//

¶46

Sd/- B PRASADA RAO ASSISTANTvR^ISTRAR SECTtON OFFICER

¶47

¶48

The District Judge. Rajahmundry. East Godavari District 2. One CC to Sri. Mangena Sree Rama T Rao Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri. P Rajesh Babu Advocate [OPUC]

¶49

Three CD Copies

Madhu

HIGH COURT

DATED:23/09/2024

ORDER

CRP.No.2365 of 2024

X 0 6 JAN 2025
o
. Current Section .

¶57

ALLOWING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION

Garaga Prabhakar Rao, East Godavari Dist v. Garaga Venkata Rao, East Godavari Dist

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Garaga Prabhakar Rao, East Godavari Dist v. Garaga Venkata Rao, East Godavari Dist

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepalli Naga Rani Vs The Tahsildar

Gandreti Bangarraju Vs The Tahsildar

Nidigattu Uma Vs The Tahsildar

Gandha Prasanna Murthy Vs Andhra Bank, a Government of India and Anothers

Chinamilli Krishna Murhty Vs Grandi China Appa Rao

Gulfarosh Ghouse Mohiddin, Vs Gulfarosh Jameel Hussain