TATINA KASI VISWESWARA RAO Vs. TATINA SITARATNAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/appellant is the 2nd defendant in A.S.No.2 of 2010 and against him and another, the respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.50 of 2001 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem. After fullfledged trial, the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem, dismissed the said suit against which, appeal suit in A.S.No.2 of 2010 was preferred before the Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem and the said appeal suit was allowed by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Judge against which, the instant second appeal in S.A.No.385/2023 has been filed by the 2 nd defendant.

(2.) The case of the petitioner as per the recitals of affidavit of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows: He is the appellant in the second appeal and the second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.2 of 2010 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem. The petitioner further pleaded that the counsel in the first appellate Court was not even informed him about the judgment and decree till he enquired about the first appeal and when he enquired on 18/11/2022, his counsel in the first appellate Court filed a copy application and certified copy of the judgment was received by him and he was admitted in a hospital because of his ill-health and he is a diabetes patient and suffering from blood pressure and till he recovered from his ill-health, he has not even visited the office of his counsel. He further pleaded that when he visited the office of his counsel in the first week of February, 2023, he was informed about the delay in filing the present second appeal and that the delay of 247 days was occurred in filing the second appeal and that he filed the present application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

(3.) The learned counsel for respondents opposed the said application filed by the petitioner and contended that no medical certificate has been filed by the petitioner to prove the alleged illness and no document is filed by the petitioner to prove his bona fides as stated in the affidavit of the petitioner and that the delay is not properly explained by the petitioner and therefore, the petition in I.A.No.1 of 2023 may be dismissed.