IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6018 of 2010 Between: Managing Director, APCPDCL, Hyderabad & 2 others .. Petitioners AND Paladugu Bixamaiah & 3 others .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6018 of 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the dismissal of I.A.No.696 of 2010 in A.S.SR.No.2239 of 2010, dated 02.11.2010, by the Principal District Judge’s Court, Nalgonda. 2. The petition was filed by the defendants/petitioners for condonation of delay of 676 days in filing the appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, on the ground that there was correspondence at different levels between the officers of the company for obtaining legal advice and permission to file the appeal. 3. The plaintiffs/respondents contested the claim stating that the long delay was not explained by the defendants/petitioners and the intention is only to drag on the matter. 4. The Appellate Court rendered the impugned order noting that O.S.No.117 of 2005, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Nalgonda, was decreed for Rs.2,49,856/- and in January, 2009, the defendants/petitioners themselves deposited half of the decreetal amount after receiving a notice from the respondents. The Appellate Court also noted that E.P.No.100 of 2008 was filed by the respondents/decree holders in which notices were served on the defendants/petitioners. The defendants/petitioners were noted to be not even sure about the actual period of delay as to whether it was 676 days or 663 days and the details of the correspondence between the officers at different levels were also not stated and it was also not stated as to when the standing counsel was approached by the defendants/petitioners for any legal advice. Under the circumstances, the petition was dismissed refusing to condone the delay. 5. The defendants are before this Court with this revision contending that in the petition for condonation of delay, there was sufficient cause which was overlooked by the Appellate Court and when 50% of the decreetal amount was already deposited, the application for condonation of delay ought to have been allowed. 6. Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri G.L. Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the respondents/decree holders are heard. 7. The deposit/payment of 50% of the amount due under the decree by the revision petitioners is not in dispute. It is true that the details of the correspondence between the officers at different levels or the details of the manner in which legal advice was obtained were not detailed by the revision petitioners before the Appellate Court or this Court, but given the very nature of functioning of the public corporations, the inevitable administrative formalities before any decision is taken for filing an appeal against the judgment of the Civil Court cannot be ignored altogether. It is also true that the day-to-day delay was not explained in the strict sense and the actual period of delay was also not certainly stated earlier by the revision petitioners. However, a too rigid and technical view need not be taken regarding such circumstances as it is well settled that the consideration under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to decide the existence or otherwise of a sufficient cause for condonation of delay always receives a liberal interpretation from the Courts in order to advance the cause of substantial justice on merits rather than to punish the parties for technical lapses. If the respondents/decree holders are assured of receiving the fruits of the decree even pending the appeal, their interests are no way prejudiced and the revision petitioners who are responsible for their own ultimate predicament by their abnormal delay in not preferring the appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court cannot complain against imposition of any appropriate conditions for considering their request for condonation of delay. Therefore, the revision petitioners can be directed to deposit to the credit of the matter before the trial Court the balance of the amount due under the decree within a reasonable time with the petition for condonation of delay being considered for being allowed on such deposit and with further permission to the respondents/decree holders to withdraw the amount so deposited without furnishing any security. It is needless to mention that in case of the ultimate success of the revision petitioners in the appeal, they should be always at liberty to take steps for recovery of the amounts paid to the respondents/decree holders in any manner under the impugned judgment and decree. 8. In the result, I.A.No.696 of 2010 in A.S.SR.No.2239 of 2010, on the file of the Principal District Judge’s Court, Nalgonda, will be allowed setting aside the order passed by the Principal District Judge’s Court, Nalgonda, on 02.11.2010, on deposit of the entire balance of amount due under the decree by the revision petitioners to the credit of the matter before the trial Court within eight (8) weeks from today and in default of such deposit, the order, dated 02.11.2010, in I.A.No.696 of 2010 in A.S.SR.No.2239 of 2010, on the file of the Principal District Judge’s Court, Nalgonda, shall stand confirmed. On such deposit, the respondents/decree holders are entitled to withdraw the amount deposited without furnishing any security. 9. The Civil Revision Petition is ordered, accordingly, without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 19th April, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6018 of 2010 Date: 19th April, 2011 KL