Todeti Vimalamma v. Kamineni Tirupathaiah

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT S.A.M.P.No.724 of 2017 and SECOND APPEAL No.309 of 2017 ORDER : (Oral) Vide S.A.M.P.No.724 of 2017, the petitioner seek direction thereby to condone the delay of 60 days in filing the Second Appeal as against the decree and judgment dated 26.09.2016, passed in A.S.No.64 of 2015 on the file of XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tenali and to receive the Second Appeal on file, in the interest of justice.

2.

In the affidavit filed in support of the application, it is stated that the respondent/plaintiff filed suit O.S.No.272 of 2014 for recovery of money basing on the registered mortgage deed, dated 24.10.2011. The Court below decreed the suit vide its decree and judgment, dated 15.07.2015. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred appeal in A.S.No.64 of 2015 on the file of the Court of learned XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tenali. The appellate Court dismissed the appeal by decree and judgment dated 26.09.2016.

3.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/appellant submits that after receiving copy of the impugned judgment, the petitioner came to Hyderabad to prefer appeal. The learned counsel at Hyderabad asked him to bring entire record including pleadings, depositions and exhibits etc., so as to enable him to prepare

SKK, J S.A.M.P.No.724 of 2017 and S.A.No.309 of 2017 comprehensive grounds of appeal. Accordingly the petitioner went back, collected the records and came again to deliver to his Advocate. During that period, his wife fell sick and he had to attend on her. Thus, he could not file the appeal within the period of limitation. 4.

The fact remains that it is nowhere mentioned in the affidavit as to when the certified copy of the decree and judgment was received and when he came to Hyderabad to contact the counsel. Moreover, there is no document regarding the illness of his wife. 5.

It is trite that the day-to-day delay has to be explained, however, the petitioner herein totally failed to do so. 6.

Finding no ground to condone the delay, I hereby dismiss S.A.M.P.No.724 of 2017. Consequently, the appeal stands rejected. No order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ SURESH KUMAR KAIT, J 30th June 2017 ajr