Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 846 (AP)

Nagabandi Jadalaiah v. Jakkula Mallaiah

2007-09-06

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2007
ORDER :- This application is filed with a prayer to condone the delay of 430 days in presenting the appeal, against the judgment and decree in O.S. No.412 of 1995 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District. 2. The 1 st respondent filed the suit against the respondents 2 to 17 for the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit schedule property. The suit was contested by respondents 2 to 17, and ultimately the trial Court decreed the suit through judgment dated 28.9.2004. 3. The petitioner claims that he purchased the suit schedule property from defendants 9 and 14 through sale deed dated 1.3.2004. He pleads that he was not aware of the pendency of the suit, and that his vendors did not inform of the same. 4. In the affidavit filed in support of the CMP it is stated that soon after coming to know about the judgment and decree in favour of the 1st respondent, the petitioner applied for a certified copy of the judgment and decree, and though they were ready. on 25.3.2006, he could not present the appeal within time, on account of the death of his wife and his serious illness. 5. On behalf of the 1 st respondent, a counter-affidavit is filed, opposing the application. It is stated that the petitioner had participated in E.P. No.51 of 2005, filed for execution of the decree, and his contention, that he was not aware of the decree and judgment; is not correct. It is also stated that the decree has since been executed on 2.3.2006, by delivery of possession of the suit schedule property. 6. Heard Sri C. Ramesh Sagar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Sri A. Ananda Rao, learned Counsel for the 1st respondent. 7. The petitioner is not a party to the proceedings in O.S. NoAl2 of 1995. He claims to have purchased the suit schedule property, through a sale deed dated 1.3.2004, from some of the defendants in that suit. It is a different question, whether the alleged sale in favour of the petitioner, would give rise to any rights, in the teeth of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. He claims to have purchased the suit schedule property, through a sale deed dated 1.3.2004, from some of the defendants in that suit. It is a different question, whether the alleged sale in favour of the petitioner, would give rise to any rights, in the teeth of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. Be that as it may, the petitioner can assail the decree, by seeking leave, if he has got any rights, vis-a-vis the suit schedule property, and that the same have been defeated by virtue of the judgment and decree in that suit. Whenever third parties file appeal against a judgment and decree, by seeking leave, the delay is generally condoned, in case it is established that they came to know about the judgment and decree at a later point of time, and soon thereafter they took steps to present the appeal. 8. In the instant case, the decree in O.S. NoAl2 of 1995 was passed on 28.9.2004. It is not, as if the petitioner did not feel the impact of that decree. He filed O.S. No.210 of 2005 in the Court of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, against the 1 st respondent herein, for the relief of perpetual injunction, in respect of that very property. The pleadings in that suit, or the interlocutory applications, filed therein, would naturally refer to the judgment and decree in O.S. NoA12 of 1995. Further, when the 1st respondent filed E.P. No.51 of 2005 for execution of the decree, the petitioner came to know about it, and filed E.A. No.50 of 2006, on 17.3.2006. By that time the possession of the property was delivered. 9. Assuming that the petitioner had knowledge of the decree in question, only on 3.3.2006, on which date he applied for certified copy, the fact remains that he presented the appeal only on 22.11.2006. This enormous delay remains unexplained. Except taking the specious plea, such as his illness, he has not pleaded any acceptable grounds for condonation of such delay. Further, there is inherent contradiction in terms. If the petitioner was able to prosecute E.A. No.50 of 2006, by filing on 17.3.2006, it is not known as to how he was incapacitated from presenting the appeal in the High Court, which is in the same city. 10. Viewed from any angle, this Court is not inclined to condone the delay. 11. If the petitioner was able to prosecute E.A. No.50 of 2006, by filing on 17.3.2006, it is not known as to how he was incapacitated from presenting the appeal in the High Court, which is in the same city. 10. Viewed from any angle, this Court is not inclined to condone the delay. 11. The Application is accordingly dismissed.