Dismissed¶55

Dasari Narasimha Rao v. Bodapati Anusha

Andhra Pradesh HC10 Sept 2025CRP/1210/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay — 348 days — Section 115 CPC revision — sufficient cause — ill-health plea unsupported by medical evidence — promissory note suit O.S.No.532 of 2020, Guntur — E.P.No.62 of 2023 — counter filed in execution during delay period — Majji Sannemma (2021) 18 SCC 384 followed — S.Ganesharaju (2013) 11 SCC 341 and Basawaraj (2013) 14 SCC 81 referred — High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati — Justice V.Sujatha — CRP No.1210 of 2024, decided 11.09.2025.

What did the court decide?

None; the Civil Revision Petition was dismissed with no costs, and miscellaneous applications pending, if any, also stand dismissed. ¶55

Dasari Narasimha Rao Vs Bodapati Anusha — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the Civil Revision Petition was dismissed with no costs, and miscellaneous applications pending, if any, also stand dismissed.

¶55

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court rightly dismissed I.A.No.3125 of 2023 refusing to condone the delay of 348 days in filing the appeal against the decree in O.S.No.532 of 2020.

¶35

Court's answer

No piece of paper or evidence was produced to substantiate petitioner No.1's plea of viral fever, jaundice and severe ill-health; he disclosed neither the hospital name nor dates of admission and discharge, so the bald allegation could not justify condonation, and such abnormal delay cannot be condoned on mere asking on the concept of substantial and complete justice.

¶51

Ratio / Principle

Following the ratio in Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao Vs. Reddy Sridevi and others, the Trial Court committed no error warranting interference in its order dated 30.04.2024; the revision is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.

¶54

Key takeaways

Refusal to condone delay results in foreclosing the suitor from putting forth his cause, but there is no presumption that delay in approaching the Court is always deliberate.obiter¶44

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 CPC by the defendants against the Principal District Judge, Guntur's order dated 30.04.2024 in I.A.No.3125 of 2023 refusing to condone a 348-day delay in filing the appeal against the decree in O.S.No.532 of 2020, a promissory-note suit (note dated 02.06.2017) decreed on 27.10.2022. The plea that petitioner No.1 suffered viral fever, jaundice and other health issues for ten months from December 2022 was unsupported by any medical record — no hospital name, admission or discharge date disclosed. Holding that such abnormal delay cannot be condoned on mere asking in the name of substantial and complete justice, and following Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao Vs. Reddy Sridevi and others, (2021) 18 SCC 384, the Court found no error in the Trial Court's order and dismissed the revision with no costs.

¶1

APHC010257542024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3333]

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

THURSDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶7

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1210/2024

¶8

Between:

¶9

DASARI NARASIMHA RAO, S/O SRINU, AGED 31 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.4-169, AMBEDKAR STATUE BESIDE BAZAR, GORANTIA VILLAGE, GUNTUR RURAL MANDAL.

¶10

DASARI VIJAYALAKSHMI, W/O NARASIMHA RAO, AGED 29 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.4-169, AMBEDKAR STATUE BESIDE BAZAR GORANTIA VILLAGE, GUNTUR RURAL MANDAL.

¶11

...PETITIONER(S)

¶12

AND

¶13

BODAPATI ANUSHA, D/o Yohan, Aged 27 years, Occ Software Engineer, R/o. D.No.8-130, Ramalayam Street, Near Panchayat office, GorantIa Village, Guntur.

¶14

...RESPONDENT

¶15

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased tomay be pleased to allow the Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the order dated 30.04.2024 passed in I.A.No.3125 of 2023 in C.F.R.No.8809 on the file of Principal District Judge, Guntur and pass such

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

VS,J CRP_1210_2024

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings of orders passed in E.P.No.62 of 2023 in O.S.No.532 of 2020 dated 23.11.2023, on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur and pass such

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶21

1.ARUN SHOWRI G

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent:

¶23

1.Marella Radha

¶24

2.MARELLA RADHA

¶25

The Court made the following:

VS,J CRP_1210_2024

ORDER :

This civil revision petition is filed by the petitioners/defendants under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short “C.P.C.”), challenging the order dated 30.04.2024 passed in I.A.No.3125 of 2023 in C.F.R.No.8809 by the Principal District Judge, Guntur, whereby, the Trial Court dismissed the interlocutory application filed to condone the delay of 348 days in filing the appeal.

¶30

For the sake of convenience, the parties to the revision will hereinafter be referred as petitioners and respondent, as arrayed before the Trial Court in I.A.No.3125 of 2023. 3) The petitioners filed I.A.No.3125 of 2023 alleging that the respondent filed suit O.S.No.532 of 2020 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Guntur, basing on a promissory note dated 02.06.2017 and the said suit was decreed on 27.10.2022. Immediately after the disposal of the case, petitioner No.1 suffered with high fever due to jaundice and several health issues for ten months from December, 2022 onwards, therefore, he could not file the appeal within time, and as the delay is not wilful, he requested to condone the delay in filing the appeal.

¶31

The respondent filed counter in I.A.No.3125 of 2023 denying material allegations, inter alia, contending that the reason stated by petitioner No.1 that he suffered viral fever with jaundice for a period of 10 months are all false and the petitioners have not explained day to day delay. Further, there are no valid grounds to condone the delay of 348 days in filing the appeal, requested to dismiss the petition.

¶32

¶33

VS,J CRP_1210_2024

¶34

The Trial Court upon hearing argument of both the counsel, dismissed I.A.No.3125 of 2023 observing that the petitioners have not shown any sufficient cause to condone the delay of 348 days in filing the appeal.

¶35

During hearing, learned counsel for the revision petitioners/defendants Nos.1 and 2 contended that the petitioners have good grounds to succeed in the appeal as the alleged promissory note was not sent for expert opinion, which would clearly prove the case of the petitioners, and as petitioner No.1 suffered viral fever and several health issues immediately after disposal of suit, the delay of 348 days has occurred in filing the appeal, requested to allow the revision and condone the delay.

¶36

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff contended that the petitioners have not explained the day to day delay, as such the trial Court dismissed the interlocutory application filed to condone the huge delay, the same need not be interfered with, and requested to dismiss the revision.

¶37

In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “ S.Ganesharaju (D) Through L.Rs. Vs. Narasamma (D) through L.Rs and others¹ ”, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:

¶38

“In fact, it is always just, fair and appropriate that matters should be heard on merits rather than shutting the doors of justice at the threshold. Since sufficient cause has not been defined, thus, the courts are left to exercise a discretion to come to the

1 (2013) 11 SCC 341

VS,J CRP_1210_2024

conclusion whether circumstances exist establishing sufficient cause. The only guiding principle to be seen is whether a party has acted with reasonable diligence and had not been negligent and callous in the prosecution of the matter.”

¶43

In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “ Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao Vs. Reddy Sridevi and others² ”. In the facts of the said case, the High Court condoned the delay of 1011 days in filing the appeal, but, in the appeal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the order passed by the High Court by holding that the High Court is not at all justified in exercising its discretion to condone such a huge delay as no explanation much less a sufficient or a satisfactory explanation had been offered by respondent Nos.1 and 2 therein for such delay.

¶44

This Court is aware of the fact that refusal to condone delay would result in foreclosing the suitor from putting forth his cause. But, there is no presumption that delay in approaching the Court is always deliberate.

¶45

In the case of “ Basawaraj and Anr. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer³ ” the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the discretion to condone the delay has to be exercised judiciously based on facts and circumstances of each case. It is further observed that the expression "sufficient cause" cannot be liberally interpreted if negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides is attributed to the party. It is further observed that even though limitation may

¶46

2 (2021) 18 SCC 384

¶47

3 (2013) 14 SCC 81

¶48

¶49

VS,J CRP_1210_2024

¶50

harshly affect rights of a party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when prescribed by statute. It is further observed that in case a party has acted with negligence, lack of bona fides or there is inaction then there cannot be any justified ground for condoning the delay even by imposing conditions. It is further observed that if courts start condoning delay where no sufficient cause is made out by imposing conditions then that would amount to violation of statutory principles and showing utter disregard to legislature.

¶51

In the present case, the petitioner herein filed counter in E.P.No.62 of 2023 in O.S.No.532 of 2020 in the month of September, 2023. Petitioner having filed counter in E.P.No.62 of 2023, failed to file the appeal within time against the decree and judgment passed in O.S.No.532 of 2020. The main cause shown by the petitioners is that, petitioner No.1 was suffering from viral fever, jaundice and several health issues for a period of 10 months immediately after the disposal of the suit. But, no piece of paper/evidence is produced before the Court to show that he was treated at hospital due to severe ill-health. In the entire affidavit, petitioner No.1 did not disclose the name of the hospital, date of admission and date of discharge, except making a bald allegation that he was suffering from viral fever with jaundice and treated for some time for severe ill-health. It is the duty of the petitioners to produce sufficient material before the Court to substantiate their contention and on mere asking that such abnormal delay cannot be condoned on the concept of substantial and complete justice. Following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “ Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao Vs. Reddy Sridevi and others ”, (referred supra) this Court is of the opinion that the Trial Court did

¶52

¶53

VS,J CRP_1210_2024

¶54

commit no error warranting interference of this Court in the order dated 30.04.2024 passed in I.A.No.3125 of 2023 in C.F.R.No.8809 and the revision is devoid of merits, consequently, the revision is liable to be dismissed.

¶55

In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶56

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall also stand dismissed. No costs.

¶57

_______________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶58

11.09.2025 Ksp

Dasari Narasimha Rao v. Bodapati Anusha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dasari Narasimha Rao v. Bodapati Anusha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. B.R. B.R. Ambedkar Educational and Charitable Origination. Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri Ruppa Srinivasa Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kottapalli Gowramma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K.Vivekananda, Vs Karri Venkata Reddy

Smt.K.Uma Bai Vs Smt.K.Veeru Bai

Smt. Shantamma Vs Chippagiri Virupakshi