The High Court · 2025

...Respondents/ Res ponde$b/Defendants (Respondents 3 to 5 are not necessary parties to this cRl)) t .' :', ,' ,, .#*+t*# lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavil filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.98 of 2017, on the file of the Additional Senior Civil J udge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Mancherial, Camp Court at Luxettipet, pending disposal of the main C.R.P. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI D.BHASKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.'t:-- Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI MRS SRINIVAS CIVIL REVISION PETITION No: 54 of 2025 Petitior under Nticle 227 of the Constitution of lndia aggrieved by the order dated 06-12-2024 passed in 1.A.No.309 of 2024 in O.S.No 98 of 20'17 on the file of the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Mancherial, and Camp Court at Luxettipet. Between: Boinepalli Krishna Rao, S/o. Hanumanth Rao, Aged about 47 years, Occ Business, R/o. H.No. 1O-1-2711, Bhagyanagar Colony, Karimnagar. ...Petitioner/Respondent No.4/Defendant No.4 AND

1. 2 Vangapalli Rama, Wo. Venkateswara Rao (died) Vangapalli Venkateshwar Rao, S/o. Janardhan Rao, Aged 66 years, Occ. Busines;. R/o. H.No. 27-2111, Hamaliwada, Mancherial. ... Respondents/Petitioner/Plaintiff/ Proposed Plaintiff 3 E. Diwallar Rao, S/o. Janardhan Rao. Aged 61 years, Occ. Agriculture. R/o. H.No. 2-4-1 19, Bharathinagar. Near Masjid, Peddapalli.

4. J. 2- Dee 0- 1 1 pi<a,, Wo. Narsinga Rao. Aged 59 years, Occ. Housewife. R/o. H.No. 905, BhaevanaLaY r Colony, Karimnagar.

5. P. Divya, Wo. Jaypal Rao, Aged 57 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. Flate No. 202, Road No.2, Poladi Apts. Mangapur Colony, Old Alwal, Secunderabad (Respondents 3 to 5 are not necessary to this CRP) ...Respondents/ Respondents/Defendants lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstanqes stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleafed pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No. 98 of 2017, on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Mancherial, Camp Court at Luxettipet, pending disposal of the main C.R.P. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI D.BHASKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1:-- Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI MRS SRINIVAS CIVIL REVISION PETITION No: 59 of 2025 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia aggrieved by the order dated 06-12-2024 passed in 1.A.No.308 of 2024 in O.S.No.98 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Mancherial, Camp Court at Luxettipet. Between: Boinepalli Krishna Rao, S/o. Hanumanth Rao Aged gb.out 47 years, Occ Businbss, R/o. H.No. 10-1-2711, Bhagyanagar Colony, Karimnagar' ... Petitio ner/Res pon dent N o.4/Defendant No.4 AND

2. Vangapalli Rama, Wo. Venkateswara Rao (died) VangapalliVenkateshwar Rao, S/o. Janardhan Rao, Aged 66 years, Occ Busi-ness, R/o. H.No. 27-2111, Hamaliwada, Mancherial. ... Respondents/Petitioner/Plaintiff/ Proposed Plaintiff

3. E. Diwakar Rao, S/o. Janardhan Rao, Aged 61 years, Occ Agriculture, Rio. H.No. 2-4-119, Bharathinagar, Near Masjid, Peddapalli.

4. J, Deepika, Wo. Narsinga Rao Aged 59 years, Occ Housewife, R/o. H.No. 2- 10-1995, Bhagyanagar Colony, Karimnagar.

5. P.Divya, Wo. Jaypal Rao, Aged 57 Years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. Flat No.202, Road-No.2, PoladiApts., Mangapur Colony, Old Alwal, Secunderabad. Respondents/ Res pondentslDefendants (Respondents 3 to 5 are not necessary parties to this CRP) -1-d lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No. 98 of 2017, on the file of the Additional Senior Civil "udge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Mancherial, Camp Court at Luxettipet, perrding disposal of the main C.R.P. Counsel for tlte Petitioner: SRI D.BHASKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1:--- Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI MRS SRINIVAS The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUI{A Civil Petitio .s2 54 5 Tt{E sTH DAY OF DECEMBBR, 2025 Between: Boinepalli Krishna Rao AND Vangapalli Rama (died) and 4 others Peti -10ner ORDER: The present Civil Revision Petitions are preferred aggrieved by the orders dated 06-12.2024 p asse{ by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Camp Court at Luxettipet in I.A.No.3O7 of 2024 and I'A Nos.30B and 309 of 2025 , both in O. S. No.9B of 20 17 '

2. Heard Sri D. Bhaskar Reddy, learned the petitioner/respondent No.4/defendant No Sri MRS Srinivas, learned counsel for the re{ I for 4 and ipondent No.2 /petitioner/proposed plaintiff. t.\ \ \ J 2:

3. 'l'he above Interlocutory applications i.e. I.A.Nos.3O7, 308 and 3o9 of 2024 were filed to bring the regal representative of the deceased plaintiff on record, to condone the delal'i of (71 days in filing the application uncler order 22 Rule 9 otcPC and lbr setting aside the order of abatement.

4. T'he brief f,lcts of the case are that the deceased plaintiff/ respondent No.1 fited suit against the petitioner and reslror-rdent Nos.3 to 5 herein seeking partition and separate possession and cancellation of Gift Settlement Deeds br:aring Nos. lB73 of 2ol7 and tBT4 of 2olr, both dated 07.03 .2017. The suit was at the stage of trial and at that juncture, the plaintiff died on 2a.o4.2o24 leaving behind her husband i.e. respondent No.2 hereirr as the legal heir. The, deceased plaintiff's husband filed petition under order 22, Rule 3 of cPC to implead him as plaintiff No.2 in the main suit as legal heir of his wife. In said petition, the petitioner herein filed counter alleging that there is a delay of (7) days in filing the petition under Order 22, Rule 3 of CpC and ther,:fore, said petition is not maintainable until and / 3 unless petitions are filed to condone the delay of (7) days and to set aside the abatement occurred-

5. Upon filing of the counter and after a laps of b months, respondent Ncl.2 filed petition to condone d lay and b a petition to set aside the abatement. A11 the inter]locutory applications have been allowed by the learned Tri4l Court. Aggrieved by the same, the above Civil Revision Peti s are preferred.

6. During arguments, it is submitted that re! pondent No.2 who sought to implead himself as legal heil r of the deceased plaintiff ought to have fi1ed petition to condone delay, to set aside abatement and to implead himself. Instead, he fiIed only petition vide I.A.No.3O7 of 2024 to implead himself as legal heir under Order 22 Rule 3 of CPC. Further, it is submitted that no cogent reason is 3iven for t filing the petition with delay. Lastly, it is emphasi] after filing of counter, r:espondent No-2 has ,"1 ken two zed that months of time to come up with the two new peti! :10ns 1.e \ \ J,,r :4 I.A.No.3OB of 23024 to condone delay and I.A.No.3O9 of 2024 to set aside abatement. In view of this conduct, the revlsl0n petitioner/defendant No.4 prayed that the Civil Revision Petitions be allowed and the Interlocutory applications be disrnissed.

7. In that context, learned counsel for the petitioner placed :^eliance ulton judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court ol tndia ir-r the case of Balwant Singh (deadf v Jagdish Singh and othersl, wherein, it is held as under "32. It must be kept in mincl that whenever a la,,v is enacted by thc li:gislature, it is intended to be enforced in its propc:r perspoctive. It is an equally settled principle of law that the provisions of a statute, including every word, have to be given [Lll effect, keeping the legislative intent. in mind, in order to ensure that the projected object is achie'rred. [n otht:r words, no provisions can be treated to have been enacterd purposelessly.

33. Furthermot:, it is also a well-settled canon of interpretzrtive jur;sprudence that the court shourd not give such an interpretation to the provisions which wourld rendr:r the provision ineffective or odious. Once the legislature has enacted the provisions of Order 22, u,ith partir:ular reference to Rule 9, and the provisions of the Limitation Act art: applied to the entertainment of such an appli:ation, all these provisions have to be given their true .'(zoro) B scc 6Bs I d and correct meaning and must be applied wherever for. If we accept the contention of the learned appearing for the applicant that the Court should a very liberal approach and interpret these provisions ( 22 Rute 9 CPC and Section 5 of the Limitation Act) in uch a manner and so liberally, irrespective of the per delay, it would amount to practically rendering all provisions redundant and inoperative. Such interpretation would hardly be permissible in law'

34. Liberal construction of the expression "suffil cause" is intended to advance substantial justice 'aJ itsel{ presupposes no negligence or inaction on the pJ the applicant, to whom want of bona fide is imputl There can be instances where the court should conl the detay; equally there would be cases where the ( must exercise its discretion against the applicant for 1 of any of these ingredients or where it does not r( "sufficient cause" as understood in law' (Advanced Lexicon, P. Ramanatha Aiyar,2nd Edn', L997\ :ient 'hictr Lrt of able. )ourt $rant :flect Larn,

35. The expression "sufficient cause" implies the . of legal and adequate reasons. The word "sufficient" S adequate enough, as much as may be necessary to the purpose intended. It embraces no more than that which provides a plentitude which, when done, s accomplish the purpose intended in the light of circumstances and when viewed from the reaso standard of practical and cautious men' The su as it would persuade the couft, tn cause should be such discretion, to treat the delay 4.s an exercise of its judicial provisions give the courts elough excusable one. These to apply a law in a meanfngful power and discretion manner, rvhile assuring that the purpose of enacting a law does not stand frustrated.

38. Above are the principles which should contrQ exercise of judicial discretion vested in the court t 1 the t I 6 thes: pr-ovisions. The explained delay should be clearly undr:rstood in contradistinction to inorclinate unexplained dela',r. Dclay is just one of the ingreclients which has to be considered by Lhc court. In addition to this, the court must also takc into alccount the conduct of the parties, bona fide re&Sr)oS for conck;nation of dela1,. and whqther such delay coul,l easil-v be avoided by the applicant acting with nornral care and cautior-r. The statutory provisions mandate that applications for condonation of delay and applicatior-rs bclateclly filed beyond the prescribed period of Iimitation for bringing the legal representatives on record, shor lcl l;e rejeclccl unless sufficieut cause is shor,rrn for condclnation o[ cic:lay. Thc larger Benchcs as well as equi- Benc'hcs of this Court tratvc consistently followed these prin<:iples and have either allorved or declined to condone the delay in iiling such applications. Thus, it is the requirement of law that thcse applications cannot be allo',r,ed as a matter of right and even in a routine manner. An applicant rnust essentially satisfy' the abovestated ingredients; then alone the court would be inclined to condone the delay in the filing of such applications." B. I:e response, the learned coLrnsel for respondent No.2 submitte d that there is a short delay of (71 days in filing the petition r]rder 22 Rure 3 of cPC and that said petition alone was filec[ as the respondent No.2 was under the bonaf,rde impressi,rn that the petition is filed during limitation. only after the counter was hled, the respondent No.2 rcalized that there is ,r delay of (7) days and therefore, filed the petitions to condo re delay and to set aside abatement order passed. Ir - I 7 is submitted that the defect which occurred is curable defect. More so, since the suit is filed seeking partition and separate possession wherein the cause of action survives in

9. Having regard to the case of both the parties, it is seer-r that the cieceased/plaintiff filed suit for partition and separate posscssion seeking allotment of her sharc in the suit schedule property. She died when the matter stood posted for trial. The respondent No.2 who is the husband of deceased plaintiff ought to have filed a petition to implead himseif under Order 22 Rule 3 of CPC within a period of (90) days. While so, the.same was filed after lapse of (9'7) days with a delay of (71 days.

10. When the citation relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Balwant Singh's case (supra) 1S perused, it is seen that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has directed the Courts to give liberal construction of the expression 'sufficient cause' for the purpose of advancing \ Jd-- 8 substantial justice rvhich itself presupposes no negligence or inaction on the pztrt of the applicant, to whom want of bona fide is imputable. 1 1. The aforeme:ntioned legal ratio was laid down when the delay in filing ttre petition urrder C)rder 22, Rule 9(3) was of (7781 Cays as compared to the instant case wherein the delay is rtnll, (7) davs. The delay of (778) days shows lack of diligence and negligence whereas the clelay of (71days can be a genuine error on account of a bona fide belief that the petition is filed '*,ithin the period of limitation

12. Procedures are handmaids of justice and cannot be an instnrment to defeat substantial rights of parties. Since the delal' was a short- period of (71 days, the same cannot be held against the respondent No.2 to deny him to press for his right:; as lega1 heir of his deceased wife

13. [n the circumstances, this court sees no infirmity in the ord':rs dated 06. 12.2024 passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nlacherial Camp court at 9: I I I t I I i LtrxettipetinI.A.No.3OTof2024andI'A.Nos.3O8and309of 2025, both in O.S.No'98 of 2017' There are no grounds to interlerewiththcimpugrred.ord.ersandtheCivilRer,ision

14. Accorclingly, the Civil Revision Petitiohs ate dismissed confirming the orders dated 06.1 2'2024 passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Jud.ge, Macherial Camp courtatLuxettipetinI.A.No.3OTof2024andI.A.Nos.3oB and 309 of 2025, both in O'S'No'98 of 2Ol7 ' Pending miscellaneous applications' if atty ' shall stand closed. No costs' SD/. U.SUDHA ASSISTANTREGISTRAR //TRUE COPY/ SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The Additional Senior civil Judge-cum-Assistant sessions Judge, Mancherial, CamP Court at LuxettiPet'

2. One CC to SRI D. BHASKAR REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI MRS SRINIVAS Advocatd [OPUCI 4. Two CD CoPies NVB/PSL JyJ. _h I I HIGH COURT DATED:05/1 212025 COMMON ORDER CRP.Nos.S2, 54 and 59 of 2025 e 'r. () (J ?3JAil2{M i * * DISMISSiING THE ALL CIVIL REVISION PETITIONS J,t<s ?zl,lza ;. r.:*,