In ,n,der singh v. The state of Ma.dhya pradeshr the Hon

...RESPONDENT'PETITIONER/DEFENDANT IAN O:1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 of C'P'C ' praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings in O S No'95 of 2016' on the fie of Principal Junior Civil Judge -cum- Judicial First Class Magistrate at Huzurabad' /, - CIVIL REVISION P T ITION NO:5 0F 2025: Civil Revision rre.i.jcn filed under Arlicle 222 of. the, Consti ution of lndia, aggrieved by *e ."ders aatea ZA O3 roi+plrr"o in l.A.\o t 39 of 2022 n o s No 95 of 2( 1(i 3n thg fire the ";;;-;i'5r;;;princica Jun:r civir Judse - cum- Judicial l:i st O ass Magistrate ,t ff rrrrJJj. ' Between: Ivladadi_hla:jhaia Reddy, S/o Venkat Reddy, aged abc,ut 69 y(ars, d:$[fls, " rlrr -e: R/o Chailur viilage, veen6vin-rJ fiIi,oui ot,i Jit"rnn"s"r AND ...PETITIONER/RESiPONDE NT/PLAINTIFF Madadi Srr-'nter Reddv. S/o Narayana Reddy, aged;lbout 7g years, Occu: agricutturtr ,,o ( ) ralturu vittrge, vee'nZri;Hrilrff:F:rrrr nag rr district, now Ir"So""J?: y, ;,'r:ins at H_Noi 5 i i;bC r,j;;i;#;;;';::;,, o d R_ A orrice, IA NO 1(JF 2X 25 ...RESPONDENT/PETI TIONEF /DEFENDANT Petition urr er Siection .15.1 of C p C., praying that in the ,ircumstances stated in the afr'icrav i fired in support of the petition, thr: Hi3h ( )ourt may be pleased to stay ol arr rurther proceedings in o.S. No.g. .f 2!.1)16, on the fie of Principar Junior oi"il Jr,dge -cum- Judiciar First crass Magis;lrate at ruzurabad. Counsel for the petit oner (ln both the CRp sl :SRl. TANGEDA DA'!/ANANDA RAO Counsel for the Respc,ndent (ln both the CRp,s) The Court made the f )llowing :SRl N. NAVEEN KUitlAR : COMMON ORDER I l HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LN{SHMAN CTVIL REVISI ON PEf,ITION Nos.5&7 of2O2S COMMMON ORDER: Heard Sri Tangeda Dayananda Rao' learned counsel for the petitioner - plaintiff and Sri N' Naveen Kumar' learned counsel for the respondent - defendant' Perused the record.

2. The petitioner herein had filed a sttit uide O'S'No'95 of 2016 against the respondent herein for perpetual injunction restraining him and his agents etc" from interfering with his possession over the suit schedule property. The said suit was decreed on 27 'O2'2O17 ex parte. Therefore, the respondent .herein had hled two applications i.e., I.A'No'839 of 2022 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the d'elay of 1979 days from 28.02.2017 to 2g'O7'2O22 in frling petition under Order IX Rule 13 C'P'C to set-aside thLe ex parte decree and I.A.No.7 12 of 2022 under Order IX Rule 13 C'P'C to KL,J :::I Nos5&7of2o25 2 set-asicfe the ex parte decree and j._rdgme.rt dated 27 .O2.2O 1l' r:ontending as follows: (i) rl.: is diagnosed with CAD_Usrrstable Angina, LBBB, C\(}.SVD (LAD) (2714/2t) and plirnned or pTCA to LAD with 1 DES and seriously fell_ill. IIe war, advised to take ltt d rr:st. (ii) Ft e rvas aged 75 years as on the satd clate . (iii) \p;rrt from the aforesaid ailmer_.ts, hi is also sufferin5; tic,rrr other old age ailments. J Thr:r,.:frtre. the respondent herein could not contact his advc,ctte all these days and could rtct file written statemerLt l1 the said suit and counl.,lr in inteim rnlunction a6rplication. Therefore, he was s--t ,=x larte on 27.O2.2O1i'. After recovery from Covid_l,!,, he rame to know abtrlt tassing of said ex parte decrr:e. Th erefore, he sought t-o condone the delay of L9Z9 da1.s occr rred in Iiling appli,.:ati,rn to set-aside the exparte dr::ree.

4. The p--ti .roner herein has filed counter.opposing the said applic:rtilns contending that the resprrnclent herein KL,J C.RPN6-5&7of2025 3 appeared before the trial Court on 18'07'2016 through his learned counsel and entered appea-rance. Therefore, he was in contact with his counsel' He has been appearing in C.C.No'2 73 of 2Ol7 pending on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class' Huzurabad' He has also frled representation before the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records against the respondent herein for surveying the land in dispute' Therefore,hehasnotexplainedday-to-daydelayforl9T9 days carrsed in frling application to set-aside the ex parte decree and judgment' 5. Vide otder dated 28'03 '2024 learned trial allowed I.A.No.839of2022condoningdelayof1979daysby holding that the respondent herein is suffering from ill- health, due to which he could not contact his counsel and he is aged 70 years and filed certifrcate to the said effect. The learned trial Court while condoning the said delay imposed costs of Rs'S,OOO/- payable to the Mandal Legal Services Authorit5r, within (O3) months from the ';1j, \ _. ', \.s5&7of2025 KL,J 4 date of tlt: said order. Challenging the r;airl orrler dated 28.03.2O,14 n I.A.No.839 of 2022 in O.ti.No.95 of 2016 passed l)r, learned tria_l Court, the ltetitiorrer filed C.R.P.Nc 7 ,tf 2025. Similarly, learned r.ier: (,.<turt uide order dzrt,.:d OB.It.2024 allowed I.A. No.7 t2 (rf ,2)22 filed. by the rer.ip:rrdent herein to set aside the e_x pare decree dated 2'; .i)2 .2.OIZ witt_ costs of Rs. 1,OOO/ payab Ie to the petitionr,r h:rein with a direction to hle written sl atement on the ne;<t rlate of hearing without lail. Oha[enqing the order a-lso rh.r: petitioner has hled C.R.p.Nc.5 <tf 2,)25.

6. This (_tourt heard Sri Tangeda Dal.alran<ta Rao, learned coLrrrsel for the petitioner and Sri llaveen Kumar, learned corlrLr;,:l for the respondent extensivt:ly.

7. Thele i:; no dispute with regard to filitrg of the suit and passr.ng o1' ex parte decree on 27.o2.2ol.,r. ,Ihere also no disptrti: that the respondent herein is accrrsed in C.C.No.2i'i rr' 2OlZ pending on the hle ol II Ad(titiona_l Judicial 1\4;rgir;trate of First Class, Huzuratrrrd. Trere is xf%kffiWif-,.{.yKT-l KL'J C R-P Nos.5 & 7 of2025 5 also no dispute that the respondent had executed a registered gift settlement deed in favour of his wife in respect of land admeasuring Ac'O-1O guntas in Sy.No.1011, situated at Challuru Revenue Village uide registered gift Deed bearing No'6527 of 2016' da*:ed

22.06.2016. It is apt to note that petitioner has also executed 8. registered gift settlement deed in favour of his wife in respect of Sy.No' 1O I 1 of Challuru village itself' It is also not in dispute that on the complaint lodged by the petitioner, Police P'S' Veenavanka had registered a case inCrimeNo.SSof2oi-Tagainsttherespondenthereinfor the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 427 of IPC. g. Both the petitioner and respondent herein are agnates. The petitioner is 7O years old and respondent is 80 years old. In proof of the said ailments' the respondent herein had hled copy of the certificate dated tg.O7.2O22 issued by Aster Prirne Hospital wherein it is 6 XL.J Ios5&7of2O2s stated that the respondent, a ma-le patient u/;ls ( iagnosed with CA D.t- 5ns12616 Angina, LBBB, C.{(i-SrvD (LAD) (27/4/21) :r-:d planned for pTCA to LAD rvrth i t)ES. He is unde n1oir-rg treatment through in_pa:ient and out_ since 2013 onwards. patient sie rvi,: e

10. perurial of record a_lso would re.real tlrat the responde nl. has given an undertakinlt befr re the investigarirrg officer that on 24.04.2012 ttirt he ;yill not interfere altlL r.he investigation of the case irr er:y r nanner nor hamper. ,:rl. tamper with the prosecution t:viclenr :e etc. 11. As ,jiscrrssed supra, tl.e suit is filerl seeking perpetual irrjr-rnction. The suit schedule prooerer.is land admeasunng .Ac.01_33 guntas in Sy.No.S ,_2, Ac 0l_26 guntas in S.,..lro.52O arrd Ac.O_Og guntas in S1,.No. 1011, making a tcteJ extent of Acs.03_27 guntas cf wet lald situated a.t ()ealluru Village, Veenavanl<a Mzndal, Karimnagar. ,iir;t.:ict. Both the petitioner and res;porrdent are agnater;. [)udng pendencv of the saic[ surt the respondent lras executed registered gift settlen-rer.t in I XI,J C.R.P.Nos5&7ot2o2s 7 favour of his wife in resPect of Ac.0-10 guntas ln Sy.No. 1O 1 1 of Challuru village' 12. lt is the specihc contention of the respondent herein that he is suffering with CAD-Usnstable Angina' LBBB' CAG-SVD ILADI (2714l2ll atfiplanned for PTCA to LAD with 1 DES' In proof of the same' he has filed medical certifrcate, which is not in dispute' There was Covid in the year 2ol9' The delay of 1979 days is huge delay' Therefore, the respondent has to explain the said delay by showing s,frrcient cause in frling application under Order IX, Rule 13 of C'P'C' Therefore' in the aff,rdavit frled in support of ttre aforesaid I'A'' he has specifically contendedthatheissufferingfromCAD.Usnstable Angina,LBBB,CAG_SVD(L^D|(2714121|andplanned for PTCA to LAD with 1 DES since 2013 and also Covid- 19. The respondent herein is 80 years old person' The said suit is for perpetual injunction' i's e'ft-- H:Ya - ffi*, ffi'+. EF;: ffif.',1 YI(l.J L r' 'Noss&7ot2ois 8 13' In ,n,der singh v. The state of Ma.dhya pradeshr the Hon".rlr: Supreme Court held that "to do s1 6.6^rr,., justice, Courts have to adopt liberal ,approach in condonin;q rlelay on examination of the facts t!,1err:in,. 14. In the Frresent case a-lso, the suit irs f,or perpetual injuncticn z:rd both petitioner and rt:sp<lnd _,nt are agnates. llLt: respondent is suffering frorrr the abresaid senous old agle ailments. 15. It is p.tearled in the said suit that both ol.then have executed I w,l registered gift settlement rlee ds. The aforesaid ( .(: ItIo.2T3 of 2OLT pending on thr: file of II Additional lV.gistrate of First class, H,z,rat ad is pending agrdrr st the respondent for the of.,:nr:es under Sections 42')' and 447 of IpC.

16. It is rJsc ilpt to know that in compliarLce u.r h the order datr.d 2t1.O3.2O24, the respondent had aready deposited ll arnount of Rs.5,000/- towards c,rsts with the Mandal rellrrl Services Authority. r 2025 LiYeLaW rS( ) .ll ) ----'-7 t -., KL,J C-R.P Nos-s & 7 ot 2025 9 the averments rnade in the affidavit :":::,',;::;:":,"::

17. On considering filed in support of the said petition by the respondent counter filed bY the petition- condoned the delay of 1979 days by rm Rs.5,0OO/- and allowed l'A'No'712 by setting aside the ex Parte decree dated'27 'O2'2O17 ' 18. The petitioner herein placed reliance on certatn subsequent events which are not rnendoned in the counter filed by him in the aforesard two I'A's before the learned triat Court' 19. However' considering the serious ill-health being suffered by the respondent herein and considering the age, this Court is of the view that the condonation of delay of 1979 daysby learned trial Court is proper' It is reasoned order and there is no error in it' 20. h the light of the aforesaid discussions' both the liable to be dismissed and revision Petitions are accordinglY dismissed' i j-_,_r .- I I I ! r _ . . i.sr&7or2025 t!L,J l0

21. Du::r;r notice ,)l tir is tralsl'er r Huzura5rrd. Huzuralterd 5; the course of hearing, it ir; b,r.ouliht to the is Court that aforesaid suit O ll.l\b 95 of 2ot6 't:d to learned Seni<lr Civil Jtr,Cge s Court, Therefore, the learned Seni,tr Civ 1 Judge, ts directed to dispose of the suit . AS expeditiousl). as possible, preferably witLrn a (O3) months i.om the date of receipt of copl.ol t There shrri trt: n6 91dsr as to costs. pertod of hrs order. As a .re,1rrel thereto, miscellaneous pe:itic r1s, i1 arry, pending in the,revisions shall stand closed. "'^tsll!il,iA:t,tiR?l / //TRUE COPYII ,{. l SECTIC N OFFICER i)rincipal Junior Civil Judge -cum- Jud cial First To,

1. The C\aSs Magistrat: at Huzurabad' 2 oneccro sr{\ "-:?i'iH::i}:lx':ca'ieroP'[r 3. One CC \o SI'l\ t'l NAvl cD c)"'t' 1uo o. )r \ ?cso ' " \e ,ro{- ),1 ti-' 5 HIGH COURT DATED:1 1t04t2O2S C)s e l J o O OlI J-UL ; (i( ) COMMON ORDER CRP.Nos.S &7of 2O2S t li!'^.c,,r -*::i;i- !) ll DISMISSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITIONS Isl €