Dismissed¶45

Ravipati Satya v. Ravipati Satyavathi

Andhra Pradesh HC19 Feb 2026AS/86/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Andhra Pradesh High Court, Amaravati, 20.02.2026; A.S. No.86 of 2026; I.A.No.1 of 2026; I.A.No.2 of 2026; Section 151 CPC; condonation of delay refused; delay of 950 days; insufficient cause; vague and general statements; no material particulars or supporting documents; finality attached to judicial proceedings; appeal suit dismissed as barred by limitation; preliminary decree dated 04.11.2022; O.S. No.36 of 2022; VII Additional District Judge, Peddapuram; schedule property; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions closed.

What did the court decide?

The Court is not satisfied with the cause shown for condoning the inordinate delay of 950 days: the affidavit contains only vague and general statements, with no material particulars or supporting documents placed on record to substantiate the reasons pleaded. ¶40

Ravipati Satya Vs Ravipati Satyavathi — Andhra Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶45

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 950 days in filing the Appeal Suit ought to be condoned on the cause shown in paragraph No.2 of the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.1 of 2026.

¶37

Court's answer

¶40

Ratio / Principle

Delay cannot be condoned as a matter of course unless sufficient cause is shown; in the absence of satisfactory explanation, the Court cannot condone such inordinate delay, as it would defeat the principle of finality attached to judicial proceedings.

¶40

Key takeaways

I.A. No.1 of 2026 (petition under Section 151 CPC for condonation of the 950-day delay) is dismissed.ratio¶44
Consequently, the Appeal Suit (A.S. No.86 of 2026) is dismissed as barred by limitation; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, also stand closed.ratio¶45

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati (Special Original Jurisdiction), 20.02.2026 — Ravi Nath Tilhari and Balaji Medamalli, JJ.; judgment delivered per Ravi Nath Tilhari, J. A.S. No.86 of 2026 with I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2026 (both petitions under Section 151 CPC): the appellant/original defendant sought (i) condonation of a delay of 950 days in filing the appeal, and (ii) stay of further proceedings, challenging the preliminary decree dated 04.11.2022 in O.S. No.36 of 2022 (VII Additional District Judge, Peddapuram) insofar as the suit was not decreed in respect of the schedule property. The explanation offered in the affidavit — inability to contact counsel owing to health and other personal reasons — consisted only of vague and general statements, unsupported by material particulars or documents. Holding that delay cannot be condoned as a matter of course unless sufficient cause is shown, and that condonation without satisfactory explanation would defeat the principle of finality attached to judicial proceedings, the Court dismissed I.A. No.1 of 2026 and, consequently, the Appeal Suit as barred by limitation; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions stood closed.

¶1

¶2

(RNT,J & BM,J A.S.NO.86 OF 2026)

¶3

APHC010480002025

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶5

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶6

[3572]

¶7

FRIDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶8

PRESENT

¶9

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

¶10

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI

¶11

I.A.No.1 of 2026

¶12

In/and

¶13

APPEAL SUIT NO: 86/2026

¶14

Between:

¶15

RAVIPATI SATYA, W/O LATE GOPALA KRISHNA, , AGED 26 YEARS HOUSE WIFE, D.NO. 2-1/5, GANDEPALLI MANDAL, PEDDAPURAM

¶16

...APPELLANT

¶17

AND

¶18

RAVIPATI SATYAVATHI, W/o Ravipati Govindu, Aged 55 years House wife D.No. 1-176, Mallepalli village Gandepalli Mandal Kakinada District Peddapuram

¶19

...RESPONDENT

¶20

The above named Appellants humbly presents this Memorandum of Grounds of Regular Appeal to this Honble Court ag ved by the Judgment and Decree dated 04.11.2022 passed in O S No.36 of 2022 on the file of the Honble VII Additional Disnct Judge At Peddapuram, in so far as not decreeing the suit in respect of schedule property, for the following among other

¶21

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶22

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 Pleased to condone the delay of 950 days to filing the appeal and pass

¶23

¶24

(RNT,J & BM,J A.S.NO.86 OF 2026)

¶25

IA NO: 2 OF 2026

¶26

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 pleased to Stay all further proceedings in Judgment and Decree dated 04th November,2022 passed in O S No.36 of 2022 on the file of the Honble VII Additional District Judge At Peddapuram pending disposal of the main suit including final decree proceedings in favor of petitioners/ Appellants, against the Respondents/Respondents pending disposal of the main Appeal and pass

¶27

Counsel for the Appellant:

¶28

1.G ESWARAIAH

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent:

¶30

¶31

The Court made the following :

¶32

¶33

(RNT,J & BM,J A.S.NO.86 OF 2026)

¶34

JUDGMENT:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari)

¶35

This appeal has been filed by the appellant/defendant, being aggrieved by the preliminary decree passed by judgment and decree dated 04.11.2022 in O.S. No.36 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the learned VII Additional District Judge, Peddapuram.

¶36

The appeal was filed along with 1.A.No.1 of 2026 seeking condonation of delay of 950 days in filing the appeal.

¶37

The cause shown in paragraph No.2 of the affidavit filed in support of the said application, reads as under :

¶38

“ I humbly submit that I could not inform about the judgement and decree of the above said suit and as could not contact my counsel due to various health and other personal reasons. I submit that there was a delay of 950 days in filing the present appeal. I submit that I am not aware about the details of the counsel/ we could not contact him to file the proper applications to set aside the above said decree and to lead evidence and as such the delay of 950 days for filing the same is neither willful nor intentional.”

¶39

4. We are not satisfied with the cause shown for condoning the

¶40

inordinate delay of 950 days. Except for vague and general statements, no material particulars or supporting documents have been placed on record to substantiate the reasons pleaded. It is well settled that delay cannot be condoned as a matter of course unless sufficient cause is shown. In the absence of satisfactory explanation, the Court cannot condone such

¶41

¶42

(RNT,J & BM,J A.S.NO.86 OF 2026)

¶43

inordinate delay, as it would defeat the principle of finality attached to judicial proceedings.

¶44