Case Number Allotted Beyond Limitation Period? Applicant Raises Allegations Against Uravakonda Court
Delay under the guise of staff shortage — serious allegations over limitation violation
Uravakonda, Anantapur District : A resident of Kottalapalli village, Kurava Lakshminarayana, has levelled serious allegations against officials of the Uravakonda court. He claimed that the Public Information Officer (PIO) gave inconsistent and misleading replies to the queries filed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
According to Lakshminarayana, in Civil Suit No. 167/2022, the case was entertained on the 1096th day after the date of the promissory note, even though the legal limitation period is only three years (1095 days). He alleged that the court accepted the suit beyond the limitation period, which is against the law.
“Filing a civil suit even a day after the three-year limitation for a promissory note is illegal. Allocating a case number 72 days after filing shows administrative failure,” said Kurava Lakshminarayana.
The applicant further stated that he had sought copies of the court fee receipt, filing date, and related certified documents, but no clear information was provided by the PIO. Instead, the officer cited staff shortage and supervision issues as the reason for the delay in case number allocation.
However, Lakshminarayana rejected this explanation, calling it an attempt to cover up administrative lapses. He argued that staff shortage cannot justify procedural violations or delayed numbering of an expired promissory note case.
Meanwhile, the Appellate Authority stated that replies to questions 1, 2, 4, and 5 were already provided earlier, and hence the appeal was dismissed. But the applicant insists that the crucial third question was ignored, which amounts to a violation of the RTI Act.
Local citizens have also demanded a transparent inquiry into the issue and urged higher authorities to take action against those responsible.
Tags: Uravakonda Court, Kurava Lakshminarayana, RTI Act, Limitation Act, Promissory Note, Civil Suit 167/2022, Public Information Officer, Anantapur District
0 Comments