IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD DATE. 24-02-2011. PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3496 OF 2000 Between: The Andhra Cement Company Limited (A Company Registered under the Companies Act, 1956), office at Vijayawada, Krishna District, Rep. by its Executive Director. --- Appellant/ Petitioner/ Plaintiff. AND The Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Dept. of Expenditure, New Delhi and four others. --- Respondents/ Respondents/ Defendants. The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3496 OF 2000 ORDER: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against dismissal order dated 24-08-2000 passed in I.A. No.1262 of 2000 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1962 in O.S. No.478 of 1984, on the file of the Court of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 2. The appellant herein is the petitioner and the respondents happened to be the respondents in the Interlocutory Application. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred as they are arrayed in the interlocutory application before the lower Court. 3. Originally, C.R.P. No.5281 of 2000 was filed and it was converted as this C.M.A. No.3496 of 2004. The interlocutory application was filed to condone delay of 1479 days in filing another interlocutory application under Order IX Rule 9 of C.P.C. in I.A. No.1262 of 1998 on the file of the Court of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District, giving reasons, whereas on behalf of the respondents, counter was filed denying the pleas taken therein with a request to dismiss the application. 4. On the basis of the material available and after hearing both the parties, the lower Court dismissed the application on the ground that sufficient reasons were not given to allow the petition. 5. Therefore, it is to be mainly examined as to whether the petitioner gave valid reasons to condone the delay in filing the other interlocutory application under Order IX Rule 9 of C.P.C. and whether the order passed by the lower Court is tenable or not and whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief as prayed for? 6. The reasons given in the application to condone the delay are that it sustained financial loss in the year 1989 due to various reasons and consequently it was declared as a sick industry by ‘The Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction’ (for short, ‘the BIFR) and then the BIFR appointed Industrial Development Bank as its operating agency on 27-07-1990 and thereafter the Duncan Agro Industries Limited submitted a rehabilitation scheme which was finalized by the BIFR and later the old management of it was removed and a new management took over it and hundreds of employees including the officers of it left the company in the process and relevant records of it were disorganized and the skeleton staff which remained in the company could not meet necessary requirements. Further, the present management of it on verification found that good number cases were filed against it at different places and the present case file was traced following which necessary steps were taken. 7. The claim of the respondents is that false pleas are taken by the petitioner and hence the petition is not tenable. 8. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner before this court that good reasons are given to allow the application relying upon a decision reported in N. Balakrishnan V. M. Krishnamurthy[1] of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in which an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1962, condoning delay of 883 days occurred in filing an application under Order IX Rule 9 of C.P.C. under similar circumstances was allowed. In that case basing upon the material available, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed : “Appellant engaged an advocate (one Sri MS Rajith) for making the motion to set the ex parte decree aside but the advocate failed to inform him that the application was dismissed for default on 17-02-1993. When he got summons from the execution side on 05-07- 1995 he approached his advocate but he was told that perhaps execution proceedings would have been taken by the decree-holder since there was no stay against such execution proceedings. On the advice of the same advocate, he signed some papers including a Vakalatnama for resisting the execution proceedings, besides making a payment of Rupees two thousand towards advocate’s fees and other incidental expenses. But the fact is that the said advocate did not do anything in the Court even thereafter. On 04-08-1995 the execution warrant was issued by the Court and he became suspicious of the conduct of his advocate and hence rushed to the Court from where he got the disquieting information that his application to set aside the ex parte decree stood dismissed for default as early as 17-02-1993 and that nothing was done in the Court thereafter on his behalf. 4. Appellant did not stop with filing the aforesaid application. He also moved the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Madras, North, ventilating his grievance and claiming a compensation of rupees one lakh as against his erstwhile advocate. The said forum passed final order directing the said advocate to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the appellant besides a cost of Rs.500/-“ 9. It is important that the petitioner filed the suit to recover an amount of more than Rs.30,000/- from the respondents way back in 1994 during which time it would have substantial value compared to the value of equal amount at present. It is to be further emphasized that it is clearly explained to the effect that the petitioner became sick unit and a caretaker was appointed to manage it and a scheme was incorporated in that context and the old management was as a whole removed and new management was appointed during which process hundreds of its staff were removed which resulted in keeping only skeleton staff and on verification, the new management found that several hundreds of cases were filed against the company and then the present case file was traced following which necessary measures were taken. The petitioner happened to be a big establishment and when such conclusions had arisen it is difficult to manage its affairs properly. Any impossibility to take necessary measures at the out set because of existence of such circumstances should be taken into consideration. The matter is to be examined in a broader view in stead of dismissing it on the basis of narrow considerations. Therefore, I am of the view that valid reasons are given to allow the application. 10. The lower Court in my opinion failed to appreciate the matter properly and arrived at incorrect conclusions and therefore its order has to be set aside. No doubt, as it is a old matter it gives some discomfort to the lower Court. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed setting aside the order passed by the lower Court and the petition is allowed condoning the delay of 1479 days caused in filing the application under Order IX Rule 9 of C.P.C. Further, in the circumstances of the case, the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District, is directed to expedite the proceedings and dispose of the matter as early as possible. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated: 24-02-2011. Dsh. [1] AIR 1998 SC 3222