AP High Court Refuses To Condone 110-Day Delay In Appeal, Says Misplaced Certified Order Copy 'Not Sufficient Cause'
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has refused to condone a 110-day delay in an appeal against the dismissal of a suit seeking specific performance of a contract.
In doing so, the Court rejected the appellant's claim that the certified copy of the trial court's judgment and decree had been misplaced, holding that the explanation did not constitute sufficient cause for condoning the delay.
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, permits a court to admit an appeal filed after the prescribed period if the appellant shows “sufficient cause” for the delay.
A Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam held that the principle of adopting a “liberal approach” in condoning delay cannot override statutory limitation when the party is found negligent or lacking in due diligence. The Court noted:
“From the aforesaid paragraph, the cause taken is that certified copy of the judgment and decree, which was received was misplaced and then extra copy was asked and the same was provided on 18.09.2025. So that took time resulting into delay. We have seen the certified copy annexed to the memo of appeal that was applied on 10.04.2025 and became ready on 14.05.2025 and was received on 14.05.2025. There is no proof of getting another extra copy. In fact the same copy has been filed which was applied on 10.04.2025.
We find, the cause stated is not sufficient for the delay of 110 days. Consequently, the appellant not being diligent in filing the appeal, no case for condonation of delay is made out.”
The appellant was the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance, which had been dismissed as barred by limitation. She thereafter filed the appeal along with an application seeking condonation of the 110-day delay.
She claimed that the certified copy had been misplaced and that she contacted her counsel for another copy, which she received after a delay of about four months.
The Court, however, found no evidence that a fresh or additional certified copy had been obtained. The copy filed along with the appeal was the same copy that she had applied for and received earlier.
Finding that the appellant had failed to act diligently, the High Court rejected the application for condonation and consequently dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation.
Case: P. Vanajamma v. P. Mahitha Reddy & Ors.
Case No.- I.A. No. 1 of 2025 in/and Appeal Suit No. 585 of 2025.
Counsel for Appellant: VMR Legal
Counsel for Respondents: A. Syam Sundar Reddy