Dismissed

Chinthalapuram N. YugandharRaju v. Nagireddigari Venkata Reddy

Andhra Pradesh HC18 Jul 2024SA/121/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Plaintiff sought condonation of a 1244-day delay in filing a second appeal against decrees dismissing his suit for injunction, citing Covid-19 illness and lack of funds. The court found no details of treatment or expenditure given and held that the small court fee showed funds were not an obstacle, dismissing the application and consequently the appeal.

What the court decided

AI extract

Chinthalapuram N. YugandharRaju Vs Nagireddigari… — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶2

FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

K O'
PRESENT O,
-'4

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RA

¶5

I.A.No.l of 2024

¶6

IN/AND

¶7

SECOND APPEAL NO: 121 OF 2024

¶8

Appeal under section 100 of C.P.C, aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 12.02.2020 made in A.S.No.4 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge Punganur, Chittoor District, dismissing the appeal by confirming the Judgment and Decree, dated 18.11.2016 made in O.S.No.376 of 2008 on the file Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge Court at Punganur, Chittoor District,

¶9

Between:

¶10

Chinthalapuram N. Yugandhar Raju, S/o. Late C.V. Nagaraja. Aged about 54 years. Occ- Employee and Cultivation, R/o. Door No. 31-45/2-1, DhanduPalyam Road, Kothaindiu, Punganur, Chittoor District.

¶11

...APPELLANT/ APPELLANT/ PLAINTIFF

¶12

AND

¶13

Nagireddigari Venkata Reddy, (died)

¶14

Nagireddigari Nagaraja Reddy, S/o. AgasthaReddy, aged about 46 years.

¶15

Medarmeta Venkatrami Reddy, S/o. Gangi Reddy, aged^about66 years..

¶16

¶17

Nagireddigari Vijayakumar Reddy, S/o. AkkulaReddy, aged about 36 years.

¶18

Nagireddigari Nagi Reddy, S/o. Venkata Reddy, aged about 41 years.

¶19

N.Narakka, W/o. Late Venkata Reddy, aged about 69 years.

¶20

N. Krishna Reddy, S/o. Late Venkata Reddy, aged about 63 years.

¶21

N.Nagi Reddy, S/o. Late Venkata Reddy, aged about 54 years.

¶22

N. Mohan Reddy, S/o. Late Venkata Reddy, aged about 49 years.

¶23

[All are R/o Chadalla Village, Punganur Mandal, Chittoor District.]

¶24

...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS / DEFENDANTS

¶25

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶26

Petition under Section 5 of Limitation Act, , praying^{thatinthecircumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 1244 days in filing the present second appeal

¶27

lA NO: 3 OF 2024

¶28

Petition under Section 151 CPC, praying that in the^{circumstancesstatedin} the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with plaint schedule property in O.S.No. 376 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Punganuru.

¶29

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI. S PARINEETA

¶30

Counsel for the Respondent No’s 6,7,8,9: SMT.S AYESHA^AZMA

¶31

The Court made the following:

¶32

¶33

APHC010406902023

¶34

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶35

[3206]

¶36

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶37

FRIDAY, NINETEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶38

PRESENT

¶39

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶40

SECOND APPEAL NO: 121/2024

¶41

Between:

¶42

Chinthalapuram N. Yugandharraju

¶43

...APPELLANT

¶44

AND

¶45

Nagireddigari Venkata Reddy and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

¶46

Counsel for the Appellant:

¶47

1.S PARINEETA

¶48

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶49

1.AYESHAAZMAS

¶50

¶51

The Court made the following ordier:(per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)

¶52

I.A.No.1 of 2024

¶53

IN/AND

¶54

SECOND APPEAL NO: 121/2024

¶55

The petitioner herein had filed O.S.No.376 of 2008^onthe file of the Learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Punganur, against the respondents herein for grant of an injunction against the respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the suit schedule property which

¶56

¶57

¶58

consisted of Ac.3.50 in Sy.No.271/4, Ac.1.50 in Sy.No.271/6 and tamarind trees situated on the western side of the property in Sy. No.271/4.

¶59

The Learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Punganur, by a judgment and decree dated 18.11.2016, had allowed the suit partly and dismissed the relief sought in respect of tamarind trees situated on the western side of the property. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner moved the Court of Learned Senior Civil Judge, Punganur by way of A.S.No.4 of 2017, which came to be dismissed on 12.02.2020. 4. The petitioner has now filed the Second Appeal (S.A.No.121 of 2024) with a delay of 1244 days. This application is being filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the said delay of 1244 days.

¶60

The affidavit filed in support of the application states that, the Covid pandemic which commenced in March, 2020, had prevented him from filing the appeal in time. The petitioner also states that he had contracted Covid-19 twice and had spent substantial amount for his treatment due to which he did not have any funds for filing the appeal. The petitioner states that he was able to accumulate funds only recently and hence was able to prefer the Second Appeal with a delay of 1244 days.

¶61

¶62

The respondents have filed a counter affidavit submitting^thatthe said ground raised by the petitioner does not make^{acaseforcondonationof} delay.

¶63

The affidavit does not set out the details as to the duration for which the petitioner had contracted Covid-19 nor does the petitioner give any details as to the expenditure involved for his treatment or the hospital or the doctors who had treated him. The Court fee paid by the petitioner in the appeal is a sum of Rs.186/-. In such circumstances,^{thecontentionthathe} was unable to gather funds to file the appeal cannot be accepted. Even if the fee for the counsel is to be taken into account, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not able to gather funds for filing the above appeal.

¶64

In these circumstances, this Court does not find any^reason to condone the delay of 1244 days in filing the appeal and accordingly, the present Interlocutory Application is dismissed. 9. In view of the dismissal of the Interlocutory Application (I.A.No.1 of 2024) filed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, the present Second Appeal also has been dismissed. There shall be no order as^tocosts.

¶65

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

SD/- M RAMESH BABU

DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECinON OFFICER

To,

The Civil Judge [Senior Division], Punganur, Chittoor District (with records if any)

¶72

¶73

The Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Punganur,^{ChittoorDistrict} (with records if any)

¶74

One CC to SRI. S PARINEETA, Advocate [OPUC]

¶75

One CC to SMT.AYESHA AZMA, Advocate [OPUC]

¶76

The Section Officer, V.R Section, High court of^{AndhraPradeshat} Amaravati (With records if any)

¶77

Three CD Copies

MV. SNS

HIGH COURT

DATED; 19/07/2024

JUDGMENT

I.A.No.1 of 2024 IN/AND SA.No.121 of 2024

¶83

DISMISSING THE I.A.No.1 of 2024 IN/AND SA.No.121 of 2024

Chinthalapuram N. YugandharRaju v. Nagireddigari Venkata Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Chinthalapuram N. YugandharRaju v. Nagireddigari Venkata Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Duvvuru Mohan Reddy Vs Kintrapakam Uma Maheswar Rao

S Satyanarayanamma Vs K v R R Raju

Palgudi Santhamma Vs v Rajamma

Mrs. Godata Laxmi Vs The Government of A.P. rep. by Principal Secretary

P. Bhaskar, Vs Comer Stone World Challenge

Ramakka Vs Muneppa