Dismissed

Saroja, Mahabubnagar Dist and 3 Others v. Sujatha, Mahabubnagar Dist and 3 Others

Telangana HC24 Jul 2023SA/580/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected an application for condonation of delay to file a second appeal. The court held that a kidney surgery performed in 2016 could not explain the 915-day delay, as the limitation period expired in December 2013. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

I.A.No.1 of 2017 and Second Appeal No. 580 of 2017 were dismissed and rejected.

Saroja, Mahabubnagar Dist and 3 Others Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32s8 ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU

¶6

¶7

l.A.No.1 OF 2017

¶8

S.A.M.P.No. 1206 OF 2017

¶9

IN/AND

¶10

SECOND APPEAL NO: 580 OF 2017

¶11

Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the Judgment and Decree daled 13.12.2013 made in A.S.No. 8 of 2013 on the file of the Court of the lll Additional District Judge, Gadwal^preferred against the Order and Decree in O.P.No. 34 of 2011 dated 01 .07.2013 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, at Gadwal.

¶12

Between:

¶13

Saroja, , Wo. Late Manyambabu, Aged 50 Yrs, Occ. Household R/o.

¶14

H No. 1-3-411A, Ganjipeta Locality, Gadwal, Mahabubnagar Dist.

¶15

Smt Padmalatha, Wo. Thimothi Aged 32 Yrs, Occ. Household R/o. Ganji peta Locality, Gadwal, [\ilahabubnagar Dist.

¶16

K Chandrakanth, S/o. Late Manyambabu, Aged 30 Yrs, R/o. Ganjipeta Locality, Gadwal, Mahabubnagar Dist.

¶17

Kum Gouthami, D/o. Late Manyambabu, Aged about 28 Yrs,^Occ. Household R/o. Ganjipeta Locality, Gadwal, Mahabubnagar Dist.

¶18

...APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶19

AND

¶20

Sujatha, W/o. Late Manyambabu Aged 35 Yrs, Occ Household,

¶21

Chinnababu, S/o. Late Manyambabu, Aged 6 Yrs, Minor Rep by^1st appellant

¶22

Appellants 1 and 2 are R/o. Peddapadu Village, Of Dharoor Mandal, Mahabubnagar Dist.

¶23

...RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS

¶24

I I il I

¶25

The Chief General Manager,, Sanchar Bhavan, Abids, Hyderabad.

¶26

The C l, D, B S N L, Govt of lndia, New Delhi., -

¶27

...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶28

l.A. NO:1 OF 2017(SAMP. NO: 1206OF 20171

¶29

Petition under Section^'l 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 957 days in filing the above appeal in the interest of .lustice and to pass

¶30

Counsel for Appellants : Dr. CHALLA SRINIVASA REDDY

¶31

Counsel for Respondents 1 & 2 : M/S. R. RADHA KRISHNA REDDY

¶32

Counsel for Respondents 3 & 4 : None appeared

¶33

The Court made the following: ORDER

l,l

THE^{HONOURABLESRI JUSTICESAMBASIVARAO NAIDU}

¶38

I.A^{.No.1 0F2o17} s.A.^{M.P.NO. 12()60F2oL7} IN^AND F2 o17 EALN^{o.580 o} sECOND

¶39

OR^DER:

¶40

I.A.No.1^{of 2017 (S'A M'P'No'1206 of 2O!7)} has^{been filed by the petiti'onersunder Section 5 of the} Limitation^{Act' 1963 withaprayerto condone the} delay^{of 915 days in filing the appeal'}

¶41

2.^{Inthe affidavit filed insupport of the} petition,^{petitionerNo' lhas submitted that since she} donated^{kidney to her brother and due to ill-health'} she could^{not pursue the matter with the counsel and} thereby,^{there was delay of 915 days in preferring the} appeal.^{Except saying that she ishospitalizedby} stating^{above said surgeryasreason forsuch} hospitalization,^{no othercamse is skrown for delay of} more than^{three years for filing this appeal'}

I l

t'!

Learned counsel for the respondents . has opposed this application by way of counter stating that the rnain appeal is fited only to protract the proceedings and delay is not properly explained

¶46

A perusal of the medical record available on record, it indicates that the alleged surgery was held on 19. lI.2016 whereas the first appeal was disposed of by the Court below on 13. 12.2013. Therefore,. the cause shown for failure of filing the appeal within time rs not acceptable. It may be trre petrtioner No.1 undcrwent surgery in the year 2016 whereas, if the petitioners aggrieved with the 'findings of the first appeilate Court, they shall prefer the appeal r.r,ithin ninety (9O) days from 13. 12.2OI3 but the main appeal is filed in the year 2OlZ. Therefore, the alleged surgery and hospitaiization during 2016 cannot be a reason for filing the appeal beyond period of limitation. Therefore,

I I

the reasons cannot be acceptable ancl liable to^be

¶51

dismissed

¶52

In the light of the circumstances narrated hereinbefore, I.A.No. I ot 2OI7^{(S.A.M.P.No.1206 of}

¶53

2OL7l is dismissed

¶54

As a consequence thereof, the Second

¶55

Appeal is rejected.

¶56

Pending, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall

¶57

stand closed. No costs.

¶58

Sd/. K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPYII

SEC OFFICER

To,

The lll Additional District Judge, Gadwal.

¶63

The Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal.

¶64

One CC to Dr. CHALLA SRINIVASA REDDY, Advocate [OPUC]

¶65

One CC to Sri R RADHA KRISHNA REDDY, Advocate [OPUC]

¶66

Two CD Copies

Njb

ftv,,.

HIGH COURT

SSRN,J

DATED:2410712023

ORDER

I.A.No.1 of 2017 (SAMP.No. 12 of 20171 IN/AND

¶74

1tr i'- STAI€
(
a:
or) 0 E ti[\J 2[8
,'. -1:r
','{i |.|
^',r:..-' -.i -'- ---:'_, -- .-'

¶75

SA.No.580 of 2017

¶76

DISMISSING I.A.No.1 OF 2017 AND

¶77

RE.IECTING THE SECOND APPEAL

¶78

o ?rr(r zr^{\rt \r ?'}

Saroja, Mahabubnagar Dist and 3 Others v. Sujatha, Mahabubnagar Dist and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saroja, Mahabubnagar Dist and 3 Others v. Sujatha, Mahabubnagar Dist and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Panganti Laxmi Narasimha Vs Kalakonda Srinivasulu

The New India Assurance Company Limited, Kurnool. Vs Kavali Ramulu and 2 Others

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Hyd. Vs Bayamolola Sibash, Nizamabad and Ano

Bandaru Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs Beeram Ranga Reddy

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Shaik Raheem

P Rajendra Prasad Vs Alka Deshmukh