The Court reaffirmed its discretionary power to condone delay in filing appeals under writ jurisdiction upon consideration of parties’ submissions. The ruling upholds settled principles without overruling previous precedents. The judgment serves as binding authority on subordinate courts dealing with condonation of delay in writ appeals in Telangana.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WA/1183/2025 of Kondi Narsimhulu Vs Kurva Ramulu |
| CNR | HBHC010626712025 |
| Date of Registration | 24-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 27-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR |
| Court | High Court for the State of Telangana |
| Bench | Division Bench of MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in Telangana |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing discretion regarding condonation of delay |
| Type of Law | Procedural (Limitation, Appellate Procedure) |
| Questions of Law | Whether the delay of 139 days in filing a writ appeal should be condoned |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court, upon considering the submissions of both parties, exercised its discretion to condone the delay of 139 days in filing the writ appeal. The Court allowed the delay condonation application before proceeding to consider the main appeal. Ultimately, the appeal itself was dismissed on merits. The judgment reaffirms the established principle that courts possess the discretionary authority to condone delay for sufficient cause, guided by the interests of justice and the submissions made before the court. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Telangana |
| Persuasive For | May be cited in other High Courts |
| Follows | Follows established approach to condonation of delay in procedural matters |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The Court reiterated that condonation of delay in filing writ appeals is discretionary and based on judicial assessment of the facts and party submissions.
- Courts may condone delay for sufficient cause even in writ matters, subject to consideration of submissions from all parties.
- Lawyers should present justifiable and well-documented reasons for delay to support condonation applications.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court considered I.A. No. 2 of 2025, in which the appellant sought condonation of a 139-day delay in filing the writ appeal.
- After assessing the submissions made by both sides, the Court was satisfied to exercise its discretion in favour of condoning the delay.
- The condonation application was therefore allowed, allowing the matter to proceed on merits.
- Upon hearing the appeal, the writ appeal itself was dismissed.
- The judgment thus reaffirmed the procedural principle that courts have inherent discretion to condone delay, especially where persuasive submissions are put forth.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant)
- Sought condonation of the delay of 139 days in filing the writ appeal.
- Made submissions justifying the delay.
Respondent
- Made submissions in opposition to or consideration of the condonation application (specific content not detailed in the order sheet).
Factual Background
The appellant filed a writ appeal with a delay of 139 days. During the proceedings, an application (I.A. No. 2 of 2025) was made seeking condonation of this delay. After considering both parties’ submissions, the Division Bench condoned the delay and proceeded to hear the appeal, which was ultimately dismissed.
Statutory Analysis
The judgment addresses the discretionary power of the court to condone delay under the applicable procedural law in writ appeals. The Court did not elaborate on statutory interpretation, but exercised its discretion following established procedural principles regarding limitation and condonation.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were recorded; both judges were in agreement on the condonation and the subsequent dismissal.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations or changes in evidentiary requirements are recorded in the judgment. The application for condonation of delay and its consideration follow established procedural practice.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment upholds existing principles on the court’s discretion in condoning delay.