ESAM BHADRAMMA Vs. YENDRAPALLI THULISAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner/defendant, challenging the order, dtd. 26/8/2023 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in A.S.No. of 2022 in O.S.No.363 of 2021 by the Principal District Judge, Bhadradri Kothagudem, whereby, the subject I.A.No.1 of 2022 filed by the petitioner/defendant under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking to condone the delay of 780 days in preferring the subject appeal, was dismissed.

(2.) I have heard the submissions of Sri V.V.Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant, Sri Madiraju Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel, representing Sri Kowturu Pavan Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff and perused the record.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant would submit that the delay occurred in preferring the subject appeal was neither intentional nor wanton, but for the ill-health of the petitioner/defendant and COVID-19 pandemic prevailing then. The Court below erroneously dismissed the subject I.A.No.1 of 2022. The subject suit, which was assailed in the subject appeal, was for recovery of money, which was decreed on 15/7/2019. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in Sumoto Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020, excluded the period from 15/3/2020 to 28/2/2022 for computation of delay in view of the COVID-19 pandemic. Further, the petitioner/defendant was suffering from ill-health and she took treatment at Singareni Collieries Company Limited hospital and other private hospitals. Further, she is an uneducated woman. She came to know about the decree and judgment passed against her through her employer, when she received salary attachment warrant pertaining to her. Later she filed a copy application on 3/8/2021 which was complied with by the Court below on 6/9/2021 and thereafter, she approached her counsel for filing the subject appeal. The petitioner/defendant has got good grounds for success in the appeal. The Court below failed to take into consideration the above aspects and erroneously dismissed the subject I.A.No.1 of 2022. It is settled law that it is always better to decide the matter on merits rather than on technicalities. The rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. They are designed with an objective that parties should not resort to dilatory tactics and sleep over their rights. Further, while considering the application filed under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, the Court should take liberal pragmatic, justice oriented and a non-pedantic view. In the affidavit filed in support of the subject I.A.No.1 of 2022, the petitioner/defendant has clearly explained the circumstances under which she could not file the appeal in time, but the Court below erroneously held that there was no convincing material in filing the appeal with delay and that it is not fit to consider the subject application. No prudent person would afford to allow limitation for filing the application to expire, when he/she got a good case in his/her favour. Considering the circumstances of the case, the Court below ought to have condoned the delay of 780 days and ultimately prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition as prayed for.