//
you're reading...
legal issues

condonation of delay=Though Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, is always open to be construed liberally and even a feeble explanation showing a shadow of a sufficient cause may be acceptable in view of the need for a decision on any dispute on merits but not on technicalities, the total absence of any allegation of existence of any sufficient cause cannot be condoned even if the person requesting for such condonation is the State itself.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH

Seal of Andhra Pradesh

Image via Wikipedia

AT HYDERABAD

 

FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN

Present

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD

C.R.P.M.P.No.5642 of 2011 and C.R.P.(SR).No.23470 of 2011

Between:

Government of Andhra Pradesh

.. Petitioner

AND

L. Krishnavardhan Reddy & 5 others

.. Respondents

The Court made the following:


HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD

C.R.P.M.P.No.5642 of 2011 and C.R.P.(SR).No.23470 of 2011

COMMON ORDER:

C.R.P.M.P.No.5642 of 2011:

         

The miscellaneous petition has been filed with a request to condone the delay of 710 days in filing the civil revision petition by the State, represented by the Land Reforms Tribunal, Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar.

2.       The authorized Officer, Land Reforms Tribunal, Mahabubnagar, in her affidavit, after narrating the factual background for seeking revision of the impugned order, stated that since the order of the Chairman, Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Mahabubnagar-cum-District Judge in L.R.A.No.2 of 2008 on “29.06.2009” and receipt of the certified copies of the said order on “06.03.2009”, she was busy with the general elections to the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly and Lower House of Parliament in April, 2009, Revenue Sadassulu in April, 2010, Ration Cards Verification and Rachabanda Programme in February and March, 2011, MLC Elections in February and March, 2011, etc.  Not only herself, but all the staff members concerned in the office were said to be involved in the said activities and, hence, due to administrative grounds, the delay was requested to be condoned.  The affidavit, thus, alleges the certified copy of the impugned order to have been obtained more than 3 ½ months before the order was pronounced.

3.       The first respondent, in his counter affidavit, denied the factual allegations made by the authorized officer in her affidavit and apart from justifying the impugned order in law and on facts, the first respondent desired the request to be negatived as the delay was not explained in any manner.

4.       Sri T. Ramulu, learned Government Pleader for Arbitration and Sri V. Ramachandar Rao, learned counsel for the respondents are heard.

5.       The revision petitioner had obvious knowledge of the pronouncement of the impugned order by the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal on the very date of pronouncement itself having been represented by the Government Pleader concerned before the Appellate Tribunal.  Certified copies also had been applied for and were issued promptly and between the issuance of the certified copies of the impugned order in March, 2009 and the swearing in of the affidavit in support of the petition for condonation of delay on 27.08.2011, there was a delay of 710 days.  Assuming that the authorized officer and all her staff members were so engaged in different activities mentioned in her affidavit as to not have any scope for bestowing any attention for filing the civil revision petition against the impugned order during different periods, still the affidavit itself does not allege either the authorized officer or her staff members to be engaged between June, 2009 to March, 2010 or between June, 2010 to January, 2011 or between April, 2011 and August, 2011 in any official or statutory or administrative or any other compelling activity as to deprive them of any opportunity of taking necessary steps for filing the civil revision petition against the impugned order.  The total absence of any explanation for inaction during such long periods in between cannot provide even a remote justification for construing the existence of any sufficient cause for condoning the delay.  Though Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, is always open to be construed liberally and even a feeble explanation showing a shadow of a sufficient cause may be acceptable in view of the need for a decision on any dispute on merits but not on technicalities, the total absence of any allegation of existence of any sufficient cause cannot be condoned even if the person requesting for such condonation is the State itself.

6.       Under the circumstances, the delay cannot be condoned and the petition is dismissed.

C.R.P.(SR).No.23470 of 2011:

7.                 Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition is rejected.

                                                             ___________________

G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J

Date: 14th October, 2011

KL

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD

C.R.P.M.P.No.5642 of 2011 and C.R.P.(SR).No.23470 of 2011

Date: 14th October, 2011

KL

About these ads

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 652,092 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,558 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com

comments

k.inbasakaran,advoca… on Sec.138 of N.I.Act – Ter…
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,558 other followers