THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO C.R.P.No. 495 of 2003 Dated: 17-06-2011 Between: The Vysya Bank Ltd. .. Petitioner And Adhikari Satyanarayana (died) and others .. Respondents This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO C.R.P.No. 495 of 2003 ORDER: The revision is filed against the order in I.A.No.254 of 2000 in O.S.No.164 of 1980 dismissing the application to condone the delay of 414 days in filing an application for passing of the final decree. The revision petitioner-plaintiff is the bank and a suit was filed for recovery of the amount due under equitable mortgage and the Court passed preliminary decree on 03.04.1982 and as against that an appeal was preferred and it was also dismissed. There was some delay due to the correspondence between the plaintiff bank and its higher authorities and application could not be filed and consequently there was a delay of 414 days. The application was opposed by the 2nd respondent contending that the delay was not properly explained and, therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram considered the contentions and dismissed the application finding that there is no proper explanation of the delay and consequently there is negligence on the part of the plaintiff-bank and the petition is dismissed. A point was also raised before the lower Court that for passing of final decree whether an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable or not. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner did not dispute about the proposition of law that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable and delay can be condoned and further it is supported by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also following the decisions in STATE BANK OF INDIA v. VENDANATHANGAL DAIRY FARM AND OTHERS[1], STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD v. Y.VENKAT REDDY[2] and JONNAVARAM IBRAHIM v. UPPALURU JAHARA BI (DIED)[3]. Therefore, the question is whether there was proper explanation of the delay. Evidently, the plaintiff is not interested in losing the amount, which was granted by filing of the decree and the defendant is also a contesting party in the suit. Because of the institutional correspondence delays are likely to occur and what has to be seen is whether there was intentional delay or negligence on the part of the petitioner in prosecuting the claim. There is no advantage the plaintiff-bank gets by not filing the final decree unless there is some understanding with the respondent to help him. It is not the case of any party that the respondent has promised to pay the money or settle it or hoping that he will pay the money, the correspondence has gone. The money of the public was in the hands of the bank and for the latches if any and the public money should not be wasted and the respondent cannot be given undue advantage since the rights have already been determined. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, I feel the ends of justice would meet if the payment of interest on the decreetal amount passed by the Court is suspended for the period of delay of 414 days and the defendant is not liable to pay the interest during this period. Accordingly, the revision is allowed and the delay is condoned. It is also made clear that after the condonation of the delay the application for passing of the final decree has to be numbered and it relates back to the filing of the date of application and from that day onwards the consequential procedure has to be followed by the lower Court and there cannot be any suspension of the interest from the date of filing of the application. Each party to bear their own costs. ________________________ N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO, J Date: 17-06-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO C.R.P.No. 495 of 2003 17-06-2011 MR [1] (2000)10 Supreme Court Cases 538 [2] 2002 (1) ALT 391 [3] 2005(3) ALT 545