This order dismissed an application for condonation of delay of 564 days in filing an appeal. The court noted lack of representation and insufficient reasons in the affidavit. The appeal was also dismissed as a consequence.
Application for condonation of delay dismissed; appeal dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[32s81
IN THE HIGH COURT FORTHE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THURSDAY, THE TWENTYFIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENWTHREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLESRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAONAIDU
tAlo F 2014
IN/AND
clTY clvl L COURTAPPEAL NO: 440 OF 2018
ctwclvlL COURT APPEAL NO: 440 OF 2018
Appeal under Section96 of C.P.C against the Judgment daled22J1'2016 passeO in O.S.no. 1127 of 2012, onthe file of ll Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad
Betweenl
R Hari Prasad, S/o G.S.Rama Krishna- Reddy, occ. Examiner, working inlhe o/o Municipal Corporation,Tirupathi, ChittcorDist.Chittoor
...Petitioner/Appellants
AND
Avula Pedda Obulesu,S/o A. Ganganna, Occ. Employee, No 6-3-12471533 Rajbhavan Road, Khairtabad,HyderabadHyderabad
...RespondenUPlaantiff
I.A,N o.1 0F 2018
Petition under section5 of Limitation Act prayingthat in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filedherein the High courtmay be pleased to condone the delay of 564 daysin filing the aboveAS in OS no.1127 of 2012 dt.22-11-2016 on the fi1g of the llSenioi Civil Judge,City Civil Courtat Hyderabad, otherwise the petitioner will sufferirreparableloss.
Counse! for the Appellants:SRl.N PRAMOD (NOT BEINGPRESENT)
Counsel for the Respondent:NONEAPPEARED
The Court made thefollowing: JUDGMENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SA.TIBASTVARAOITAIDU
I.A.NO 1()F 2018
IT.{/AND
CITY CwIL COT RT APPEAL No.440 OF 2018
JTIDGMENT:
No representation on behalf of thepetitioner/appellant.
I.A.No.1 of 2018 is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, with a
prayer to condone the delay of 564 days in filing the appeal.
In fact, this application as well as the appeal was listed number of time s without any representation by the petitioner. It shows petitioner lost interest in proceeding with the appeal. Even as per the affidavit filed in support of [.A.No. I of 2018, sufficient reasons are not shown for condoning the delay.
Hence, I.A.No.1 of 2018 is dismissed. Consequently, the City Civil Court Appeal is also dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
Sd/.K. SRINIVASRAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// fu,/
fu,/
I
SECTIONOFFlCER
To, 1. Thell Senior Civil Judge City Civil Court.at Hyderabad
i. o"L icto Sri N PRAMOD, Advocate[oPUC]
k\)a
HIGH COURT
DATED:2510712023
JUDGMENT
|.A.NO.1 0F 2018 IN/AND CGCA.No.440 of 2018
1 e S T TE
q 7
2 1 OEt 2[8 lro
c)
*
t
DE{ o /'J C
DISMISSING THE IA.NO.I 0F 2018 IN/AND cccA.No.440 0F 2018
ilr5
g{<
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to condone the delay of 564 days in filing the appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
R Hari Prasad
Avula Pedda Obulesu
Sambrasivaraonaidu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
