IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTYFIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVAN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Revision Petition No.4403 of 2010 Between: Gundagani Bixamamma .. Petitioner AND Deshagani Venkat Ramana and another .. Respondents ORDER: The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order in I.A.No.94 of 2008 in an Unregistered Appeal of 2007 on the file of the Court of II Additional District Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet, dated 16-6-2010. The 1st respondent herein filed O.S.No.23 of 2005 against the 2nd respondent herein and the revision petitioner for declaration of title and issuance of perpetual injunction in respect of 121 square yards at Rajeev Nagar, Suryapet and the suit was decreed after trial on 22-10-2007. Against the said judgment and decree by the trial Court, the revision petitioner and the 2nd respondent herein preferred an appeal, but the filing of the same being beyond the period of limitation, they also came up with I.A.No.94 of 2008 for condonation of delay of 24 days in filing the appeal. The application was supported by the affidavit of the 2nd respondent herein stating about her original advocate not pursuing the case properly and her engaging a senior counsel to proceed with the case and her being hospitalized in a private Hospital at Suryapet and taking treatment from 25-11-2007 to 29-12-2007, due to which the delay occurred. The plaintiff disputed the claims of the appellants and contended that the delay was not explained properly and in any view, it was not explained as to what happened to the present revision petitioner in not taking steps to file the appeal within time. The first Appellate Court, after hearing the counsel for both parties, passed the impugned order noting the factual background and observing that the private hospital in which the revision petitioner was admitted allegedly was not named and no document was filed to show her sickness or treatment. The first Appellate Court, therefore, refused to act on the alleged ground claimed by the 2nd respondent herein and also found fault with the absence of any explanation for the absence of any action on the part of the revision petitioner herein. In the absence of any explanation for day to day delay, the first Appellate Court dismissed the application. While the 2nd respondent herein is stated to be a not necessary party to this revision as her interest and the interest of the revision petitioner are one and the same and both of them are appellants in the first appeal, the 1st respondent/plaintiff/decree holder was served with the notice before admission in this revision, but none entered appearance on his behalf. Sri Bommagani Prabhakar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner is heard. The point for consideration is whether the delay in filing the first appeal can be considered for condonation in the interests of justice? The property involved in the suit is stated by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner to be a very valuable house site in the heart of Suryapet town and his grievance is that the filing of the first appeal, which is a matter of statutory right, is sought to be nullified for the ignorant laches of the defendants in not approaching the first Appellate Court within time. The copy of the judgment in the suit filed along with the revision shows that both the defendants seriously contested the suit and committed no default in placing their defence before the trial Court and it was only in their approach to the first Appellate Court that there was delay of 24 days beyond the period of limitation prescribed for filing the first appeal. The 2nd respondent herein in her affidavit in support of the application to condone the delay stated that she was under depression due to the death of her husband and the fact that her husband died was not controverted in the impugned order. Though she was aged only about 30 years, she claimed to be suffering from diabetes and the defendants are also stated to have been compelled to change their counsel to proceed with the appeal. Though it is true that neither the hospital where the 2nd respondent herein was treated nor the doctor, who treated her, were named and though no document was filed in support of such ailment or treatment, the impugned order, which states about both the parties not producing any oral or documentary evidence, was not clear whether the parties themselves reported that they have no such evidence. While it is true that the revision petitioner herein did not file any separate affidavit explaining the reasons for her inaction, she stated in the grounds of revision that it was the 2nd respondent, who was attending to the litigation on behalf of both the defendants and it was due to the bonafide belief about the 2nd respondent herein taking necessary steps that the revision petitioner was not diligent in prosecuting her right to appeal separately. The rustic background of the lady defendants also can be kept in view and the change of counsel from the trial Court in the first appeal is also evident from the impugned order itself. It is true that strict proof of valid reasons for day to day delay of 24 days could not have been considered forthcoming from either defendant and it is also true that the first Appellate Court cannot be considered to be without reason, when it concluded that the defendants failed to explain the day to day delay in the strict legal sense. However, it is well settled that the existence of sufficient cause to enable condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act had always received liberal interpretation and consideration from the Courts, as rules of procedure are intended to be handmaids of justice and not tools of oppression to punish the parties for their technical lapses without determining their cause on merits. As the ultimate pursuit is to arrive at the truth, the reason attributed for the delay by the 2nd respondent on oath in her affidavit need not be straight away discredited, more so, when she would have been undoubtedly under depression on her husband’s death at a very young age. As valuable rights in immovable property are involved in the dispute, the short delay of 24 days can be considered for condonation on appropriate terms. The defendants had to pay costs of the suit under the judgment and decree sought to be challenged in the first appeal to a tune of Rs.2,098/- and for the inconvenience caused to the 1st respondent-plaintiff by the delay caused by them, they should sufficiently compensate him. The same can be quantified at a sum of Rs.500/-. Under the circumstances, the impugned order in I.A.No.94 of 2008 in an Unregistered Appeal of 2007 on the file of the Court of II Additional District Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet dated 16-6- 2010 is set aside and the said I.A.No.94 of 2008 will be allowed on deposit of costs of the suit awarded by the decree to a tune of Rs.2098/- and further costs of Rs.500/-, that is a total of Rs.2,598/- (Rupees two thousand five hundred and ninety eight only) to the credit of the matter in the Court of the II Additional District Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet within four (4) weeks from today and in default, the said application shall stand dismissed. On such deposit, the 1st respondent-plaintiff is entitled to withdraw the deposited amount without furnishing any security. The Civil Revision Petition is ordered accordingly without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 21-01-2011 Note: Issue CC in one week. B/oKsn