Narra Nageswara Rao Vs Akkisetty Babu Rao

Appeal Under Section_____against ordersAggrieved by the Order and decree dt. 10.02.2020 passed in I.A. No.503 of 2019 in O.S. No. 11 of 2019 on the file of XV Additional District Judge, Krishna District, Nuzvid, the above named petitioners/appellants begs

¶18

2

¶19

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶20

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 1667 days in representing the above Civil Miscellaneous appeal and pass

¶21

IA NO: 2 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 448 days caused in filing Civil Revison Petition challenging the order dated 10-02-2020 passed in I.A.NO. 503 OF 2019 in O.S.NO.ll OF 2019 the file of XV Addl. District Judge Krishna District, Nuziveedu, in the interest of justice and to pass

¶23

IA NO: 3 OF 2026

¶24

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 suspended the order dt. 10.02.2020 in I.A. No. 503 of 2020 in O.S. No. 11 of 2020 on the file of the court of XV Additional District Judge, Krishna District, Nuzvid pending disposal of the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, as otherwise, the Petitioner herein will suffer irreparable loss and injury and pass Counsel for the Appellant(S):

¶25

1.M R S SRINIVAS

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent:

¶27

¶28

The Court made the following:

¶29

3

¶30

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

¶31

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI

¶32

I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2026

¶33

In/And

¶34

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 187/2026

¶35

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

¶36

The appellants are the defendants in O.S.No.11 of 2019 on the file of learned XV Additional District Judge, Krishna District, Nuziveedu.

¶37

The respondent is the plaintiff and he filed the suit for specific performance of contract, which is pending.

¶38

In I.A.No.503 of 2019, for grant of temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the learned trial Court vide order dated 10.02.2020, made absolute the ad-interim injunction granted by the Court on 23.07.2019, pending disposal of the main suit.

¶39

I.A.No.1 of 2026 has been filed to condone the delay of 1667 days in representing the appeal.

¶40

By order dated 01.04.2026, a report was called from the Registry as to on what date the bundle of the appeal was returned for resubmission after removal of the defects, and as to when it was received back by the learned counsel for the appellant.

¶41

4

¶42

A report has been submitted to the effect that initially C.R.P(SR).No.22339 of 2021 was filed on 04.08.2021. The same was returned by the scrutiny officer on 05.08.2021 with some office objections. The physical return of the case papers was taken by the learned counsel on 06.08.2021. Subsequently, the C.R.P.(SR) was resubmitted as C.M.A. on 10.03.2026. It was numbered on 23.04.2026. A copy of the return list data has also been annexed, which shows that it was physically returned on 06.08.2021.

¶43

The resubmission is after 1667 days.

¶44

It was stated in para-3 of the affidavit filed in support of the said application that the bundle was returned on 04.08.2021, but the then counsel did not take the returned bundle back from the Registry. In para-4 of the affidavit also it has been reiterated that the present counsel, verified in the High Court, and came to know that the return bundle was not taken back. It has further been submitted that the previous counsel, who submitted the C.R.P.(SR)., died recently. Some other grounds, such as bifurcation of the State, shifting and the Covid have also been raised.

¶45

On consideration of the submissions advanced and the grounds stated, we are not convinced. As per the office report, the bundle was returned and the same was received by the counsel on 06.08.2021. The contrary averments, in the affidavit, are not correct. The grounds of bifurcation, shifting

¶46

5

¶47

and the Covid are also not helpful. Since, bifurcation etc., was in the year 2019. The appeal, initial C.R.P.(SR) number, was presented in the year 2021. After the return, on 06.08.2021, it ought to have been presented at the earliest. The Covid is also long over.

¶48

Initially in C.R.P.(SR).No.22339 of 2021 I.A.No.2 of 2021 was filed to condone the delay in filing the C.R.P. due to covid reasons and treating the same to be within the period of limitation, pursuant to the orders dated 20.03.2020 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Suo motu. At the time of representation of as C.M.A., in 2026, it appears that the said application has been corrected so as to condone the delay of 448 in filing the C.M.A. If the C.R.P.(SR). was filed within a period of limitation as extended due to Covid reasons, filing of the C.R.P.(SR). was within the period of limitation. But, after the return, re-presentation of C.R.P.(SR) as C.M.A., should been made within a reasonable period. The delay of 1667 days in re-presentation is inordinate and without any sufficient cause.

¶49

We do not find sufficient reasons for such huge delay in re-presentation of the appeal. Consequently, we are not inclined to condone the delay. Accordingly, I.A.No.1 of 2026 is rejected.

¶50