Vadde Ramanjaneyulu Vs Vedde Yasoda @ v.Sandya Lakshmi

VADDE RAMANJANEYULU, S/O V. NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC APSP CONSTABLE 17TH BATTALION, KARIM NAGAR DISTRICT, R/O H.NO. 4-92, GONDIPARLA VILLLAGE KURNOOL MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT.

¶11

...APPELLANT

¶12

AND

¶13

VEDDE YASODA V SANDYA LAKSHMI, W/o V Ramanajneyulu, Aged about 38 years, Occ Teacher in Kasthuribha School at Nandyal, Kurnool District, R/o H.no. 81-195/7, Gattaiah Nagar, Shareef Nagar, B.Camp, Kurnool. 518002

¶14

...RESPONDENT

¶15

Counsel for the Appellant:

¶16

1.G SRAVAN KUMAR

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent:

¶18

¶19

The Court made the following:

¶20

2

¶21

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI

¶22

I.A.No.1 OF 2026

¶23

IN/AND

¶24

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO. 88 OF 2026

¶25

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

¶26

Heard Sri G.Sravan Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant/applicant.

¶27

The appellant is the husband. He filed H.M.O.P.No.82 of 2017, seeking divorce under Section 13(i)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956. The respondent is the wife. The same was dismissed on merits vide decree dated 23.12.2022 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool.

¶28

Challenging the same, the present appeal has been filed with a delay of 1027 days in representing the appeal. I.A.No.1 of 2026 has been filed to condone the delay.

¶29

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appeal was presented within the time but was returned on 21.03.2023 with the office objection that all the relevant material papers were not filed. He submits that the copy of the decree was also not filed along with

¶30

3

¶31

the appeal. He further submits that after the bundle was returned on 21.03.2023 to comply with the office objections within 10 days, the appellant was informed from the office of the learned counsel asking about the decree copy to be attached with the bundle. However, the certified copy of the decree was received on 17.01.2026 from the appellant through Registered Post. He further submits that the case of the appellant is that the first certified copy was misplaced and could not be located. Consequently, the appellant had applied fresh decree copy and the same was sent through registered post and the same was received on 17.01.2026.

¶32

The aforesaid explanation has been mentioned in para Nos. 2 and 3 of the affidavit in support of I.A.No.1 of 2026, which reads as under:

¶33

“2. I submit that the above Civil Miscellaneous Petition was filed on 21.03.2023 and the case bundle was returned on 21.03.2023 with observations and to file within 10 days. I submit that after return of the case bundle my Clerk I handed over the papers to me and informed him about the observations and Decree copy is not there in case bundle and requested to comply with the observations.

¶34

3. I submit that after same was informed to my client about decree copy, my client send decree copy through registrar post, received decree copy on 17.01.2026 and my client informed me decree copy was misplaced and he could not locate it. Then he applied for the fresh decree copy through the trial court advocate and all objections complied the same is re-presented today. The delay in re-presentation is neither willful nor wanton but due to the reasons stated above.

¶35

4

¶36

From the aforesaid, it is evident that as per the office objection at the time of the presentation of the appeal, ten days time was granted to file all the relevant materials as same was returned on 21.03.2023 and was also received by the counsel. He also informed the same to the appellant but the appellant applied for the fresh certified copy, observing that the first copy was misplaced and could not be traced, which became ready on 12.01.2026. As per the affidavit filed, the same was received on 17.01.2026 through Registered Post.

¶37

We are of the view that when the office objection was informed to the appellant by the counsel’s office immediately in the year 2023 itself and if the fact was correct that the first copy was misplaced and could not be located, the appellant ought to have applied for the fresh copy immediately. The fresh copy was applied almost after more than 2 ½ years.

¶38

Consequently, we are of the view that the appellant has not been diligent in prosecuting the appeal. There was inaction. It is settled in law that on expiry of the period of limitation, a valuable right accrues to the other side to treat the decree as final and binding. The delay cannot be condoned on mere asking. We do not

¶39

5

¶40

find any sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the appeal

¶41

or in representation of the appeal.

¶42