¸ 1ITEM NO.14 COURT NO.5 SECTION XIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2012 (CC 7533/2012)(From the judgement and order dated 21/03/2011 in AS No.844/2001of The HIGH COURT OF A.P AT HYDERABAD)NAGARJUNA RESIDENTIAL HIGH SCHL.& ANR Petitioner(s) VERSUSVUPPALLA KISHAN & ORS. Respondent(s)With I.A.1 (C/delay in filing SLP and office report)Date: 04/05/2012 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYAFor Petitioner(s) Ms.Bina Madhavan, Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R This petition is directed against judgment dated21.03.2011 of the learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh HighCourt whereby he allowed the appeal filed by the respondents,reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court anddirected the petitioners to pay rupees two lakhs to them by way ofcompensation in lieu of the death of their child due to the allegednegligence of the teachers of the school. The petitioners have also filed an application forcondonation of 279 days' delay. They have filed anotherapplication for grant of exemption from filing certified copy ofthe impugned judgment. We have heard Ms.Bina Madhavan, learned counsel appearingfor the petitioners and carefully perused the record. In our considered view, there is no reason much less 2justification for accepting prayer of the petitioners for grant ofexemption from filing certified copy of the judgment underchallenge because no effort is shown to have been made by thepetitioners to obtain certified copy of the impugned judgment. In the application for condonation of delay it has beenaverred that after receiving notice of SLP(C)No.22751 of 2011 filedby the respondents, the petitioners decided to challenge thejudgment of the High Court and this is the reason why special leavepetition could not be filed within the prescribed period oflimitation. We have considered the explanation given by thepetitioners for delayed filing of the special leave petition andare convinced that the same is wholly unsatisfactory. The decisiontaken by the petitioners to challenge the impugned judgment onlyafter receiving notice of the special leave petition field by therespondents is clearly indicative of the fact that till then theywere not really aggrieved against the direction given by the HighCourt to pay compensation to the respondents. Therefore, we do notfind any justification for exercise of power by this Court underSection 5 of the Limitation Act.
The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed onthe ground of delay. (Satish K.Yadav) (Phoolan Wati Arora) Court Master Court Master