CRP/4357/2025 of Smt.G.Shanta Bai Vs Smt.S.Padmavathi Yadav on 23 January 2026

ORDER.

Heard Sri G.Nanda Gopal, learned counsel Ibr th,: petitioner and Mr.Vishwanath Yadav, leamed counsel for the rcspondcnt

2. The instant Civil Revision Pctition u,hich has bc,:r flletl asainsr the order dated 28.08.2025 passed in I.A.No.802 ol No.2903 of2025. :t.5 in ASSIT

3. Vide the irnpugned order. the lcarned Chiel' .lLLt r c. City Civil Court. Hyderabad. has rejected the LA.No.802 ol'2025. rvhcrebr. rhc petitioner seeking condonation of delay of 43 days in I ing rhe l.'irst Appeal which has bccn preferred b1. the petitioncr ri r against rhe .judgment and decree dated 14.02.2024 in O.S.No.l20l. rl 2017. has *- been rejected. The certified copy of the said judgmcnt rr I obtained by .!- Z the petitioner only on 28.01.2025 and thereafter, appeal was preferred rvith delay ol43 da1's u'hich has been rejccted.

4. 'l'he main grounds ',vhich lead thc petitioner to pursue the instant Civil Revision Petition is that tirstly: thc petitioner is an illiterate person not having awareness or knowlcdge of the appcal rights or any other rights of the petitioner, secondly; the delay being only (43) days, thirdly; if the delay is not condoned. the petitioner would be rendered remedyless. Fourthly. the lact that there was no jural relationship between the petitioner and the respondcnt and for all these reasons, it was incumbent lbr the l:irst Appcttatc Court to have condoned the delay and entertain thc appeal on merits.

5. Per contra. learned counscl appearing lor the rcspondent while opposing thc petition submits that inlact the trial Court order is one which was passcd on 14.02.2024 and the prescnt appeal that was filed before the First Appeltate Court was onll' 10.02.2025' rvhich itself would go to show that thcre has been an inordinatc delay on thc part of the petitioner in approaohing the First Appellate Court. It is the lurther contention olthc respondent that thc facl that thc petitioner has prefcrred an appcal at a belated stage is nothing but rvith a malalldc intention of protracting thc mattcr and crcating obstacles against the respondent in reaping the lruits of the judgment and decrcc decided r farour <>1'the respondcnt datcd | 4.02.2024.

6. I have heard the contentions put Forth by either ..; dc and pcrused the record.

7. As regards the contention o[the petitioner that th: computation of limitation by the First Appellate Court is of 43 days lrt:i rp erroneous, I do not find any substance in the said contention. As liorn the plain reading of thc intpugned ordcr itself it appears that the r :litioner in lact has got certificd copy of the impugned order and ju,l rrnent only on 28.01.2025, though. certified copy was applied on 15.01 ; 024. S Flower-er. as regards the circumstances which lea I rr filing of thc appeal at a belated stagc is quite justifiedly explained I, the pctitioncr beforc the First Appcllate Court though which was not ir r,jepted bY the First Appellate Cour-t in apptying the provisions of Se :rion 5 ol' thc Limitation Act in very strict senso in the course of rejccL rq t.A.No.802 of 2025. However, what strikes the conscience ol the (', utt is thal thc fact that as a consequence of rejection ol Section 5 petrt on along u ith First Appeal, thc First Appeal itsell gets rejectecl and in : r., process. the petitioner becomes remedyless to appeal against the it p,ugnsd ..6., passed by the trial Court. The opinion of this Court is rat no person should be rendercd remedyless, unless, hc voluntarily. ci iberatr:11.. and consciously evades filing ol the appeal and that too for a considerable long period of time, then the provisions of Section 5 has to be strictly applied. Whereas, in the normal course short period of delay which in thc instant case is.just around 43 days is liablc to bc considered and decided with in a more pragmatic manner. particularly, taking into account of the fact that if no delay is condoned consequently the appeal also would get dismissed rendering the petitioner or similarly placed persons remedyless S In view of the aforesaid factual matrix of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that action on the part of thc First Appeliate Court in rejecting IA.No.802 of 2025 does not seem to be proper, legal and justified. Therefore, the impugncd order is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside and quashed, subject to the petitioner paying costs ofRs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) to the Ielangana Statc Legal Services Authority within a pcriod of ten days frorn today. Upon producing the receipt of depositing costs to the State Legal Services Authority, the delay ol 43 days in prefcrring of the appeal before the First Appellate Court would stand condoncd and the petitioner would be permitted to pursue his First Appeal on its orvn merits. The First Appellate Court i.e. the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, I-Iyderabad, is directed to thereafter register the Appeal as A.S. and proceed to decide the appeal on its own merits, strictly in accordance rr th lau,, at the earliest within an outer limit of one year from the datt tf reccipl of a copy of this order Y0. Accordingly. the Civil Revision Petition stands al r i,ued. Consequently. miscellaneous petitions pending. il any. shall stand closed. Sd/.C.DEEPIKA ASSII iTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// I 5ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at HyOeraOad. \/

2. One CC to Sri G Nanda copal. Advocate [OPUC] 3 One CC to Sri Vishwanath Yadav, Advocate [OPUC]

4. Two CD Copies Sa,,tsA NOTE : Tota! Amount of Rs. 10,000/.( Rupees Ten thousand orl. ) has been paid by Sri G Nanda Gopal, Counsel for the Petitioner as rjirected by tr : Hon'ble Court vide order dated 23.01 2026 as Rs. 10,000/- ( Rupees Ten tho I ;rnd only ) ro the Telangana State Legal Services Authority and fiied Memo as lroof of compliance USR No. 15709 o'f 2026, dated 09-02-2026. I \

HIGH COURT DATED: 2310112026

ORDER

CRP.No.4357 ot 2025 ALLOWING THE CRP ,,:A-1 ..(i,""' ,...' -.) .E S !a /i l .-) ,-c) 1 r il.q l1l2( r) .>. * * :: )' )\,'ctr€o b ,Nh I