AP High Court Condones 1024-Day Delay To Bring Legal Heirs On Record, Says Party Not Expected To Keep Checking Status Of Pending Case

The Andhra Pradesh High Court condoned delay of 1024 days in filing an application to bring the legal heirs of a deceased appellant on record, reiterating that in a pending appeal a party is not expected to keep visiting the court or his lawyer every few weeks to ascertain the position of the case. [2026 LiveLaw (AP) 146]

Allowing the Civil Revision Petition, Justice Ravi Cheemalapati referred to Supreme Court's decision in Perumanan Bagavathi Devasom v. Bhargavi Amma (dead) & Ors (2008) where it was held:

"Where an appeal is admitted by the High Court and is not expected to be listed for final hearing for a few years, an appellant is not expected to visit the court or his lawyer every few weeks to ascertain the position nor keep checking whether the contesting respondent is alive. He merely awaits the call or information from his counsel about the listing of the appeal".

The court further said that while considering the scope of expression (sufficient cause), within the meaning of Section 5 of Limitation Act, the Supreme Court had laid down that the said expression should receive a liberal construction so as to "advance substantial justice" when no negligence or inaction or want of bonafides is imputable to a party.

"It is also well settled that rules of procedure are designed to advance justice and should be interpreted as not to make them penal statutes for punishing erring parties.It is appropriate to state here that in Perumanan Bagavathi Devasom v. Bhargavi Amma (dead) & Ors1 , the Apex Court while dealing with the issue of condonation of the delay in respect of matters pending at the appellate stage, has clearly observed that advocates usually inform the litigants who are to be in contact. Sometimes, they assure their clients that they will give information to them as and when the matter would be right for hearing...
The said principle when compared with the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, there are several possibilities of not knowing about the pendency of the case to the legal heirs of the deceased. There would be occasions where father would not inform his children about any litigation pending before the competent Court.”

The revision petition arose from a suit of title and recovery of possession, which had been decreed in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant challenged the decree in appeal. However, during the pendency of the appeal, the sole appellant died and the appeal stood abated after no steps were taken to bring his legal representatives on record.

Meanwhile, the decree-holder initiated execution proceedings to enforce the decree for recovery of possession.

The deceased appellant's wife and children later filed an application seeking condonation of a delay of 1024 days in seeking substitution as legal heirs. They contended that they became aware of the appeal only after receiving summons in execution proceedings and that they had no knowledge of the pending appeal earlier.

The trial court rejected the application, holding that the delay was abnormal, had not been properly explained, and that the plea had been raised merely to avoid delivery of possession of the property.

Referring to the settled legal position, the High Court observed that applications for setting aside abatement deserve a more liberal approach than other applications for condonation of delay.

The Court reiterated that the decisive factor in condoning delay is the sufficiency of the explanation, not the length of the delay.

Observing that legal heirs may remain unaware of pending litigation where the father had not informed them about the proceedings, and therefore the delay should have been condoned.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the revision petition, set aside the impugned order, and restored the application, subject to payment of ₹5,000 as costs to the respondents within two weeks.

Case Title: N. Anjinaiah @ Sakkara Anjineyulu (Died) by LRs v. N. Anumanna

Case No.: Civil Revision Petition No. 2230 of 2024

Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri K. V. Raghu Veer

Counsel for the Respondent: Sri N. Chandra Sekhar Reddy

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 146