CRP/587/2026 of KARRI VEERA RAGHAVA REDDY Vs SATTI RAMA REDDY on 29 March 2026

ORDER:

Assailing the correctness and legality of the orders passed by the III Additional District Judge, Kakinada, in A.S.S.R.No.7107 of 2024, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

2. The petitioner is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff in O.S.No.1224 of 2019 and the petitioner is the appellant/defendant and the respondent is the respondent/plaintiff in A.S.S.R.No.7107 of 2024.

3. The facts that led to filing of this revision are that the respondent/plaintiff got filed a suit in O.S.No.1224 of 2019 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kakinada, for recovery of money. The said suit got decreed under its order dated 06.05.2024. Assailing the same, the petitioner/defendant filed an appeal in A.S.S.R.No.7107 of 2024 along with an application vide I.A.No.1918 of 2024 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 131 days in filing appeal. The said application has been dismissed by the Court below under docket proceedings dated 29.11.2025. Assailing the same, the present Civil Revision Petition came to be filed.

4. Heard Sri N.Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Tarun Ganesh Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri A.K.Kishore Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit filed in support of the interlocutory application and the grounds of the revision submitted that pursuant to decretal order passed by the Court below, he could not approach the counsel due to his ill health and being a senior citizen ailing old age ailments. Further, the petitioner came to know about the decretal order of the suit only after one month of the said judgement. Thereafter, he applied for the certified copies and the said certified copy was made ready on 21.06.2024 and as he was bedridden, he could not file appeal in time, as such, a delay of 131 days occurred in filing the appeal. He further submitted that the delay application was dismissed by the Court below erroneously by its docket order dated 29.11.2025 without taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case.

He further contended that this Court as well as the Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically held that length of delay should not be looked into but for cause of such delay while adjudicating application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. He further submitted that the Court below failed to see that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent/plaintiff if the said application is allowed. Even otherwise, if any prejudice is caused, it may be compensated by way of costs, as such, prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents while justifying the orders passed by the Court below contended that the petitioner has failed to explain the delay of 131 days and in view of the same, the

Court below has rightly dismissed the application. No valid grounds raised or urged warranting interference of this Court and Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed, accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Revision.

7. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

8. The respondent herein filed a suit in O.S.No.1224 of 2019 for recovery of money and the said suit got decreed on 06.05.2024. Assailing the said order, the petitioner herein filed an appeal in A.S.S.R.No.7107 of 2024 along with an interlocutory application vide I.A.No.1918 of 2024 to condone the delay of 131 days in filing the appeal. The said application has been dismissed on 29.11.2025. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition came to be filed.

9. A perusal of the record would go to show that due to ill health and old age ailment, the petitioner could not prefer appeal in time. The delay application has been opposed by the respondent contending that the said delay has not been explained properly and prayed to dismiss the application. After hearing the parties, the Court below dismissed the said application duly observing that because the petitioner is aged 60 years, he cannot use his age as a shield to protect him from the infirmities that occurred due to his negligence and further, the petitioner did not specify the kind of ailment from which he was allegedly suffering from and accordingly, dismissed the application.

10. The Apex Court in Mool Chandra vs Union Of India 1 has categorically held that on the ground of delay, rights of the parties should not be affected and the Courts should not see the length of delay but for the reason mentioned therein.

11. Further, the respondent did not state as to what prejudice would be caused to him if such delay is condoned. Even if any prejudice is caused, the same can be compensated by imposing costs. The Court below failed to see the facts of the case in a right perspective.

12. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 29.11.2025 is hereby set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.1918 of 2024 is also allowed subject to the condition that the petitioner shall pay costs of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________

JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

Date: 30th March, 2026

RKS

1 (2025) 1 Supreme Court Cases 625