The High Court of Andhra Pradesh has dismissed an appeal filed with a delay of 1,037 days, after finding that a medical certificate advising three years of continuous bed rest was “not truthful” and prepared specifically to circumvent the law of limitation. The Division Bench, comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Balaji Medamalli, imposed a cost of ₹25,000 on the appellant for attempting to interfere with the administration of justice.
Background of the Case
The matter originated from a money recovery suit, O.S. No. 556 of 2015, filed by the respondent, Sri Giri Cotton Traders, against the appellant, Sri Venkateswara Cotton Company. The respondent sought recovery of ₹26,18,552/- along with interest, treating the amount as a khata debt.
On December 22, 2022, the Court of the IV Additional District Judge, Guntur, decreed the suit in favor of the respondent. The appellant was ordered to pay the principal sum with 12% interest per annum from the date of the suit till the decree, and 6% thereafter until realization. The appellant challenged this judgment in 2026, resulting in a significant delay of 1,037 days.
Arguments for Condonation of Delay
In the application for condonation of delay (I.A. No. 1 of 2026), the appellant contended that she could not approach her counsel earlier due to a severe spinal problem. It was claimed that she had been suffering since January 10, 2023, and was advised by her doctor to take absolute bed rest.
To support this plea, the appellant submitted a medical certificate dated February 4, 2026, issued by Dr. Koganti Ravindra Babu. The certificate stated that the appellant was advised bed rest from January 10, 2023, until the date the certificate was issued (February 4, 2026)—a period of approximately three years.
Court’s Analysis and Verification of Medical Claims
The Division Bench expressed immediate skepticism regarding the medical advice. The Court noted, “Prima facie, before considering whether the cause shown for condonation of delay is sufficient, this Court considers it necessary to verify the authenticity of the said medical certificate.”
The Court issued a notice to the doctor, directing him to file an affidavit and produce medical records. In his affidavit, the doctor stated that the appellant was diagnosed with Tuberculosis of the spine in January 2023 and was prescribed a course of anti-tuberculosis treatment. He further deposed that when the patient revisited him in February 2026 complaining of back pain, he issued the certificate at her request, unaware it would be used in judicial proceedings.
The Bench highlighted several inconsistencies in the doctor’s testimony:
- The doctor claimed he did not maintain elaborate medical records but could precisely recall dates and medicines from three years prior.
- No prescriptions or medical reports were filed by either the appellant or the doctor to support the diagnosis or the three-year rest period.
- The doctor admitted he did not prescribe any new medication in February 2026 but merely advised rest.
The Court observed:
“This Court’s concern is the manner in which the medical certificate has been issued. We have no doubt in our mind that the medical certificate is a document prepared only for the purpose of the present case to get over the delay in filing the appeal, and an attempt by the applicant to interfere with the administration of justice.”
The Bench further remarked that based on the doctor’s own affidavit, the certificate was not truthful and no reliance could be placed on it to condone an “inordinate delay of 1037 days.”
The Decision
The High Court held that the cause shown for the delay was neither sufficient nor satisfactorily established. Consequently, the Court rejected I.A. No. 1 of 2026 and dismissed the Appeal Suit as barred by limitation.
The Court imposed a cost of ₹25,000 on the appellant, payable to the Andhra Pradesh High Court Legal Services Committee, as a penalty for the attempt to seek condonation based on an untruthful certificate.
While the Court refrained from initiating formal proceedings against the 75-year-old doctor, it issued a cautionary note:
“We observe that he (the doctor) should have been very careful and cautious in issuing the medical certificate, as such certificates may have an adverse impact in many cases in the administration and dispensation of justice.”
Case Details
Case Title: Sri Venkateswara Cotton Company vs. Sri Giri Cotton Traders
Case No.: Appeal Suit No. 82 of 2026
Bench: Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Balaji Medamalli
Date: April 9, 2026
