The High Court of Andhra Pradesh has condoned a delay of 111 days in filing an appeal against a decree for specific performance of a contract. A Division Bench comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam observed that the expression ‘sufficient cause’ should be construed liberally to provide an opportunity for hearing, particularly in first appeals where both law and facts are open for challenge.
Background of the Case
The matter arose from a suit (O.S.No.451 of 2014) filed by the plaintiffs-respondents for the specific performance of a sale agreement dated June 20, 2013. The XII Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, decreed the suit on August 14, 2024, holding the agreement valid and binding on the legal heirs of the original defendant.
The appellants, who were the defendants in the trial court, preferred an appeal (A.S.No.170 of 2025) but filed it with a delay. Consequently, I.A.No.1 of 2025 was moved under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 111 days.
Arguments of the Parties
For the Appellants: Sri Y. Ramatirdha, learned counsel for the appellants, contended that the delay was due to efforts to settle the matter through a compromise out of court with the intervention of elders. He stated that the appellants were “reasonably expecting some settlement,” but negotiations failed due to the “unreasonable demands” of the respondents. He further submitted that the appellants only realized the urgency when they appeared in execution proceedings (E.P.No.825 of 2024) on March 11, 2025, and filed the appeal promptly thereafter on March 28, 2025.
For the Respondents: Sri G.R. Sudhakar, learned counsel for the respondents, opposed the application, arguing that the plea of out-of-court mediation was an “afterthought.” He noted that the certified copy of the judgment was delivered to the appellants on September 20, 2024, yet the appeal was only filed in March 2025. He alleged a delay of approximately 217 days (7 months) and argued that the appellants had not provided specific details regarding the elders involved or the dates of the alleged mediation.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Court first addressed the discrepancy in the number of days of delay. While the respondents claimed a 7-month delay, the Court accepted the Registry’s office report, which calculated the delay as 111 days after accounting for the time taken to obtain certified copies (copying days).
The Bench emphasized the importance of the right to appeal, stating:
“The valuable right of the parties are involved. The appeal is a statutory right which cannot be taken away lightly… the expression ‘sufficient cause’ has to be construed liberally in favour of opportunity of hearing, in appeal which is a right conferred by the statute and particularly when it is the first appeal, which is open on law and fact both.”
Regarding the appellants’ claim of mediation efforts, the Court noted that mediation is an effective mode of dispute resolution and it is often “not desirable to disclose the names [of elders] unless the settlement takes place.” The Court found that since the appellants had applied for certified copies shortly after the judgment, they were “not negligent or inactive.”
Relying on the landmark Supreme Court decision in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji (1987), the Bench reiterated:
“When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.”
The Court distinguished the cases cited by the respondents (P. Vanajamma v. Peddi Reddy Yoga Narasimha Reddy and Rapaka Anjana Rao v. Rapaka Chandrasekhara Rao), noting that while the law of limitation must be applied with rigor, every case depends on its own unique facts and the sufficiency of the cause shown.
Decision
The Court expressed satisfaction that the cause shown by the appellants was sufficient and that there was no evidence of deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides.
“The delay is condoned. I.A.No.1 of 2025 stands allowed,” the Bench ordered. The Court further directed the Registry to list the appeal for admission along with other pending applications.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Alla Sanyasi Rao (died), & 3 others vs. Adari Chakravarthi & 2 others
- Case No.: I.A.No.1 of 2025 in APPEAL SUIT NO: 170/2025
- Bench: Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam
- Date: April 23, 2026
