Dismissed¶43

M/s. Krishna Traders, v. Maheswari Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd.

Andhra Pradesh HC6 Apr 2026CMA/206/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; 4074 days delay; inordinate delay of about 11 years; Order 9 Rule 9 CPC application dismissed; restoration of suit dismissed for default; O.S.No.125 of 2009; I.A.No.934 of 2013; sufficient cause; medical papers insufficient and not continuous; plea of ill-health of proprietor unsupported; delay cannot be condoned on mere asking; sufficiency of cause versus length of delay; appeal barred by limitation; no order as to costs; Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati; Krishna Traders v. Maheswari Cold Storage Pvt Ltd; Ravi Nath Tilhari J; Balaji Medamalli J.

What did the court decide?

None; I.A.No.1 of 2026 (condonation of delay) was rejected and the appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation, with no order as to costs. ¶43

M/s. Krishna Traders, Vs Maheswari Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. — Andhra Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; I.A.No.1 of 2026 (condonation of delay) was rejected and the appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation, with no order as to costs.

¶43

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 4074 days (about 11 years) in filing C.M.A.No.206 of 2026 challenging the Trial Court's order dated 25.06.2014 dismissing I.A.No.934 of 2013 should be condoned (via I.A.No.1 of 2026). +1 more

¶33

Court's answer

Delay cannot be condoned on mere asking; the length of delay is immaterial and what matters is the sufficiency of the cause shown for approaching late; in the present case there is no sufficient cause.

¶38

Ratio / Principle

The cause shown in para 7 of the affidavit is of a general nature; no document was filed in support of the plea of ill-health; the documents and medical papers (including papers dated 07.02.2024 and 08.02.2024) were filed for the first time in the appeal, are neither in continuity nor cover all the years, and show no continuous illness preventing filing of the appeal during 10-11 years; hence the cause shown is not supported nor established and is not sufficient to condone the delay.

¶37

Key takeaways

The Court is not satisfied with the cause shown in the affidavit; it cannot be termed a sufficient cause for condonation of delay of long years of 10/11 years.ratio¶41
I.A.No.1 of 2026 (condonation of delay) stands rejected; consequently the C.M.A. is dismissed as barred by limitation, with no order as to costs.ratio¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

C.M.A.No.206 of 2026, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, decided 07.04.2026 by Ravi Nath Tilhari and Balaji Medamalli JJ. (judgment per Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.). The appellant-plaintiff, M/s. Krishna Traders, challenged after a delay of 4074 days (about 11 years) the Trial Court's order dated 25.06.2014 dismissing its application I.A.No.934 of 2013 under Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C., O.S.No.125 of 2009 having been dismissed for default on 05.07.2013 following two earlier defaults (17.06.2010 and 14.02.2012) and restorations (I.A.Nos.9 of 2010 and 327 of 2012). Holding that delay cannot be condoned on mere asking and that sufficiency of the cause shown, not its length, is decisive, the Court found the plea of the proprietor's ill-health unsupported — the medical papers were sporadic, neither continuous nor covering all the years, and were filed for the first time in the appeal. I.A.No.1 of 2026 was accordingly rejected and the C.M.A. dismissed as barred by limitation, with no order as to costs; pending interlocutory applications were closed.

¶1

¶2

APHC010700682025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

[3572]

¶5

TUESDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI

¶9

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 206/2026

¶10

Between:

¶11

M/S. KRISHNA TRADERS,, REP., BY ITS PROPRIETOR, CHAGANTI KRISHNA PRASAD, S/O.VENKATESWARLU, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O.ELURU BAZAAR, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶12

...APPELLANT

¶13

AND

¶14

MAHESWARI COLD STORAGE PVT LTD, (Previously Known as Krishna Prasad Cold Storage Private Limited) Rep., by its Managing Director, Bobba Venkata Krishna Rao, S/o.Venkateswarlu, Aged about 64 years, O/o.NH-5 Road, Near Lalpuram, Guntur Rural Mandal, Guntur District.

¶15

...RESPONDENT

¶16

Counsel for the Appellant:

¶17

1.SRINIVASA RAO MODUKURI

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent:

¶19

¶20

The Court made the following:

¶21

¶22

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

¶23

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI

¶24

I.A.No.1 of 2026

¶25

IN/AND

¶26

C.M.A.No.206 of 2026

¶27

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

¶28

Heard Sri Burla Siva Rama Krishna, learned counsel for the appellant.

¶29

The plaintiff-M/s.Krishna Traders is the appellant. O.S.No.125 of 2009 filed by the appellant was dismissed for default on 05.07.2013.

¶30

The plaintiff filed the application under Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C. The cause shown for the absence was found not sufficient by the learned Trial Court. The application was dismissed on 25.06.2014. 4. The learned Trial Court has recorded in para No.7 of its judgment that on various dates as mentioned in the said paragraph the plaintiff was absent. On 17.06.2010, the suit was dismissed in default. I.A.No.9 of 2010 was allowed. The suit was restored. After restoration also, on various dates, the plaintiff was not ready for proceeding further in the trial. So, the suit was adjourned on many dates. The suit was again dismissed for default on 14.02.2012.

¶31

¶32

I.A.No.327 of 2012 was, however, allowed and the suit was restored. Thereafter also, on many dates, the plaintiff remained absent. The plaintiff also did not comply with the Court’s order of payment of cost. On 05.07.2013 also, the plaintiff did not pay the cost, and also not turned up and there was no representation. So, the suit was again dismissed for default. As stated above, the plaintiff’s application, I.A.No.934 of 2013 was dismissed on 25.06.2014.

¶33

Challenging the said order, the present appeal has been filed with a delay of 4074 days i.e. after almost 11 years. I.A.No.1 of 2026 has been filed for condonation of delay with affidavit.

¶34

We have considered the submissions advanced by Sri Burla Siva Rama Krishna, learned counsel for the appellant and also perused the affidavit in support of the application.

¶35

In para No.7 of the affidavit, the cause stated is of general nature. Though the plea has been taken that the proprietor of the appellant was under physical and mental stress and the health got deteriorated. But, no document has been filed along with the application supported with affidavit in this Court, in support of the said plea or the cause shown for such long and inordinate delay. The appellant has filed some documents with the memo of appeal and a perusal thereof (page Nos.37 to 55) shows that those

¶36

¶37

documents are of the years 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 of few dates during those years, as also some medical papers (page Nos.50 to 54), dated 07.02.2024 and 08.02.2024. It appears that the aforesaid documents are being filed for the first time in the appeal. Though the suit was dismissed for default on 05.07.2013 and the application under Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C. was also dismissed on 25.06.2014 but any such plea of the appellant not being well and so for his nonappearance before the learned Trial Court when the suit was dismissed for want of prosecution, was not raised atleast for the periods of 2013-2014. Further, those medical papers are neither in continuity nor for all the years. They are for few dates only in the span of more than 10/11 years, which do not show any continuous illness or such illness so as to make the appellant unable to file the appeal during 10-11 years. So, the cause shown is not supported nor established. We do not find the cause to be sufficient to condone the delay

¶38

It is well settled in law that the delay cannot be condoned on mere asking. Though the length of delay does not matter and what matters is the sufficiency of the cause shown. The justification for approaching late. In the present case, we find there is no sufficient cause.

¶39

¶40