Dr Kondragunta Nageswara Rao Vs Ms Uday Agro and Technology Pvt. Ltd.

This appeal has been filed by the appellant/defendant No.3, being aggrieved by the order dated 28.02.2023 passed in I.A. No.193 of 2022 in O.S. No.33 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the learned XII Additional District Judge, Guntur, whereby a temporary injunction was granted in favour of respondent No.1/plaintiff.

¶10

Heard Sri O.Udaya Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, and perused the material available on record.

¶11

Respondent No.1 is the plaintiff, who filed O.S. No.33 of 2022 for specific performance of contract based on an agreement of sale dated 14.04.2021 against the defendants (including the present appellant and respondent Nos.2 and 3). Pending the suit, respondent No.1/plaintiff filed I.A.No.193 of 2022 seeking an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the plaint schedule property. The said application was allowed by order dated 28.02.2023, which is impugned in the present appeal.

¶12

2

¶13

(RNT,J & BM,J C.M.A.NO.136 OF 2026)

¶14

Along with the appeal, the appellant has filed I.A.Nos.1 & 2 of 2026 seeking to dispense with the certified copy of the order dated 28.02.2023 passed in I.A.No.193 of 2022 in O.S. No.33 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the learned XII Additional District Judge, Guntur, and to condone of delay of 1011 days in filing the appeal.

¶15

We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant on the point of condonation of delay.

¶16

Sri M. Sravan Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff, did not advance any arguments; so also, no objection has been filed, and submitted that the application may be considered.

¶17

The cause shown in paragraph Nos.5 and 7 (there being no paragraph No.6) of the affidavit filed in support of the said application reads as under: “5. I submit that there is a delay of days in filing this CMA. The delay occurred because, after the order was passed, the parties attempted to resolve the matter through mediation. During these mediation proceedings, | was under the bona fide impression that a settlement would be reached, and therefore, I did not immediately approach the Hon'ble High Court.

¶18

7. I submit that the delay is neither willful nor wanton. I have a strong case on merits as the petitioner in the lower court failed to produce evidence of my registered sale deed, which I am now ready to place before this Hon'ble Court.”

¶19

3

¶20

(RNT,J & BM,J C.M.A.NO.136 OF 2026)

¶21

We are not satisfied with the cause shown for condoning the inordinate delay of 1011 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 inordinate delay, as it would defeat the principle of finality attached to judicial proceedings.

¶22