LexMAJJI SANNEMMA @ SANYASIRAO versus REDDY SRIDEVI & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 476 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 9 S.C.R. [2021] 9 S.C.R. 476 476 MAJJI SANNEMMA @ SANYASIRAO v. REDDY SRIDEVI & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 7696 of 2021) DECEMBER 16, 2021 [M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.] Delay/Laches: Condonation of delay – Delay of 1011 days in preferring second appeal by respondents, condoned by High Court – Correctness of – Held: While condoning delay, High Court did not observe that any sufficient cause explaining the huge delay of 1011 days was made out – Averments in the application for condonation of delay showed that it was a case of a gross negligence and/or want of due diligence on the part of the respondents before the High Court in filing such a belated appeal – Delay thus remained unexplained – Discretion was not exercised judiciously by the High Court – Order of High Court quashed. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD : 1. The High Court observed that if the delay is condoned no prejudice will be caused to the appellant as the appeal would be heard on merits. The High Court also observed that there was no wilful negligence on the part of the respondents nor it suffered from want of due diligence. The averments in the application for condonation of delay showed that it was a case of a gross negligence and/or want of due diligence on the part of the respondents before the High Court in filing such a belated appeal. [Para 6.1][480-D-E] 2. In the application seeking condonation of delay it was stated that she is aged 45 years and was looking after the entire litigation and that she was suffering from health issues and she had fallen sick from 01.01.2017 to 15.03.2017 and she was advised to take bed rest for the said period. However, there is no explanation for the period after 15.03.2017. Thus, the period of delay from 15.03.2017 till the Second Appeal was filed in the year 2021 was not at all been explained. Therefore, the High Court did not exercise the discretion judiciously. [Para 6.2][480-F-H] A B C D E F G H 477 Ramlal,Motilal and Chhotelal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. [1962] 2 SCR 762; P.K.Ramachandran v. State of Kerala and Anr. (1997) 7 SCC 556:[1997] 4 Suppl. SCR 204; Pundlik Jalam Patil v. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project (2008) 17 SCC 448 : [2008] 15 SCR 135; Basawaraj and Anr. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer. (2013) 14 SCC 81 : [2013] 8 SCR 227 – relied on Case Law Reference [1962] 2 SCR 762 relied on Para 3.4 [1997] 4 Suppl. SCR 204 relied on Para 3.4 [2008] 15 SCR 135 relied on Para 3.4 [2013] 8 SCR 227 relied on Para 3.4 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7696 of 2021. From the Judgment and Order dated 16.09.2021 of the High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi in I.A. No.1 of 2021 in S.A. No.331 of 2021. Y. Raja Gopala Rao, K. Pramod Kumar, D. Gopi Krishna, Advs. for the Appellant. Siddhartha Srivastava, Adv. for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by M. R. SHAH, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 16.09.2021 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati in I.A. No.1 of 2021 in Second Appeal No.331 of 2021 by which the High Court has condoned a huge delay of 1011 days in preferring the Second Appeal, the appellant - original plaintiff – respondent before the High Court, has preferred the present appeal. 2. That the appellant herein – original plaintiff filed a civil suit being O.S. No. 40 of 2013 for permanent injunction against the respondents herein – original defendants. That the Trial Court dismissed the said suit by judgment and decree dated 23.04.2016. That the First MAJJI SANNEMMA @ SANYASIRAO v. REDDY SRIDEVI & ORS. A B C D E F G H 478 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 9 S.C.R. Appellate Court allowed the suit by quashing and setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, by judgment and decree dated 01.02.2017. That the original defendants – respondents herein applied for the certified copy of the judgment and order on 04.02.2017. The same was ready for delivery on 10.03.2017. That after a period of approximately 1011 days, the respondents herein – original defendants preferred the Second Appeal before the High Court. Application to condone the delay was also filed being I.A. No.1 of 2021. By the impugned order, the High Court has condoned the delay of 1011 days in preferring the Second Appeal, which is the subject matter of appeal before this Court. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant herein – original pl
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.