The High Court · 2025

1. Smt. C.Shashl Kiran, Wio. Dr.C.Srinivas Rao, Aqed 43 vears. Occ_ Housewife, R/o. Plot No. I 39, Brundavan Colony, Sarooinagar, Hyilerabad. 2 ptnt,.:, l.,p.na_(t1a!, Wo.J.Balavardhan Rao, Aged 40 years. Occ- Housewife, 3. Smt. .M.Vijay.{qxpi, Wo.Satyaprakash, Aged 59 years, Occ- Housewife, R/o. Plot No. 1 39, Brundavan Colony, Saroornaglar, Hyd'erabad R/o.Plot No. 139, Brundavan Colony, Saroornagar, Hyderabad. ... Revision Petitioners/Petitioners/Appellants/Defendants No.2 to 4 AND 1 2 B Ramchandra-Reddy, (die_d pe1 LRs), S/o. B VenkataSwamy Reddy, Aged 9.3 y"rr.", Occ- Contractor, R/o. H. No.'1 7- 2-7 07, Madannapet, Saidab6d, " Hyderabad. [,V91!_atra-q Reddy, S/o.R Narayan Reddy, Aged 54 years. Occ- Business, R/o.H.No.1062, Mamidipally Village, Sarooinagar Mandal. Ranga Reddy District.

3. MJ. Rajashekar !.edQy, Wo.Sudarshan Reddy, Aged 49 years, Occ- Business, R/o.H.No.2-89, Mamidipally Vitlage.- Sar-oornagbr Mandal. Ranga Reddy District.

4. P Govardhan, S/o.P.Sathaiah, Aged 47 years, Occ- Business, R/o.H.No. 11-19-147,Saroornagar, L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad. 5 Smt.B-.Alivelamma, Wolate B_,Ramchandra Reddy, Aged about 60 years, Occ- Agriculture_, _R/o, 1-54-A, Diguvabudidhavedu Vitla-ge, Vayalpadi.i (Valmikipuram) Mandal, Chittoor District

6. B Sidda Reddy, S/o.late B.Ramchandra Reddy, Aged about 44 years, Occ- Agriculture and Business_, R/o 1-54-A, Drguva6udidhavedu Village, Vayalpadu (Valmikipuram) Mandal, Chittoor District. 7 C. Siddeshwari, Wo.C.Kishor.e {y.?, Reddy. Aged about 4i years, Occ- Agriculture, R/o.Battireddygaripally Village, Kahkrri Mandal. Chittoor District. B I P. Rekha Rani, Wo.P.Vijay Kumar, Aged about 39 years,-Occ- Agriculture, R/o.Vift alam Village, Vayalf adu lVilmlkipuraml Mandal, Chittoor District' P.Malla Reddy, S/o Late Bikshapathi Reddy, Agei 6] y.e.91s' Oc^c- Agriculture, R/o.H.No.10-4-65/14, Dharmapuri Colony, Lingojiguda Village' Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. (Respondent No. 9 is not necessary party) ...Respondents/Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners : M/s. Manjari S Ganu Counsel for the Respondents: --- The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY CTVIL REVISIO N PETITIO N No. 129 of 2o25 ORDER: The present Revision Petition is hled by the petitioners herein under Articl e 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 13.11.2024 in I.A.No.322 of 2024 in ASSR'No'965 of 2024 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge' Ranga Reddy District atL.B. Nagar. o Heard Mrs. Manjari S Ganu, learned counsel for the petitioners

3. Vid.e the impugned order, the Appellate Court has rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioners herein hled along with a condone delay petition i.e. I.A.No.322 of 2024, agatnst the judgment and decree dated 04.1O .2023 rn O.S.No.596 of 2013 passed by the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L'B' Nagar'

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is a case u,here the Suit filed by the respondents seeking for ratification deed bearing document No.2429 of 2024, dated 2O'06 '2024' to be declared as null and void. was decreed in favour of the respondents uide and decree dated 04'10 '2023' On the same day' certified .judgment copy 1ryas applied and obtained on 28' LO '2023 ' Immediately' thereafter on o2. 11.2023, it is contended that the husband of petitioner No'1 Page 2 of4 suffered from a brain ailment and had to be subjected to brain surgery. In betvveen i.e. on 15.1L.2O23, the father-in-law of the petitioner No.l also expired and in the process, the appeal could not be pursued and filed within the stipulated period. However, the appeal was hled before the Appellate Court with only a delay of 58 days.

5. It is this condonation of delay petition which now stands dismissed by the Appeliate Court is under challenge in this Revision Petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that if the aforesaid two grounds raised in the condone delay petition, frrstly the husband of petitioner No.1 being subjected to brain surgery. Immediately, after obtaining the certified copy and the father-in-law of petitioner No. I also expiring shortl,v thereafter on 15.1 1.2023 ale not considered to be genuine and bona lide grounds causing delay, the petitioners herein would be put to irrcparable loss. Inasmuch as they would be rendered remediless to cl-rallenge the judgment and decre€ any further.

7. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, these t,,r,o grounds have r-rot been disputed or disbelieved by the Court and in the said circumstances a more pragmatic approach was expected from the Court nhile considering the condone delay petition i.e. LA.No.322 ot

2024. I

8. Upon due consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and also on appreciating the contents of the documents enclosed along with the Revision Petition, this court is of the Iirm view that the Appellate Courts hearing an appeal' particularly those which have been frled with a condone delay petition, unless there is an inordinate unexplained delay without justification whatsoever, the same have to be considered in a more libera-l arrd pragmatic manner. The fact which the first Appellate Court should appreciate is that in the event if the condone delay petition is not entertained and allowed, the parties would be left remediless to challenge the said impugned judgment, particutarly when the delay not being inordinate. In the instant case, the delay is only that of 58 ( t d avs. g.InthecircumstancesofthetwogroundspleadedbSrthe petitioners being not found to be untrue and false' this Court is of the consideredopinionthatitisafitcasetoallowl.A.No.322of2024. Accordingly, the order dated 13'11'2024 in I'A'No'322 of 2024 in ASSR.No.965 of 2024 is set aside and the delay in filing of the first appeal stands condoned. The matter stands remitted back to the Court of the Principal District and Sessions Judge' Ranga Reddv District at L.B. Nagar. As a consequence, the I'A'No'322 of 2024 is ordereci to be allowed and appeal should also be registered and the \ Principal District and Sessions Judge is expected to take up the appeal in accordaace with law and decide the same as expeditiously as possible.

11. closed. The Civil Revision petition accordingly stands allowed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand //TRUE COPY// Sd/. L. VIJAYA LAXMI ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR 't\ I,'/\L -----<- s$bfror.r oFFtcER To, Nagar 1' The principar District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy Dishict at LB 2. One CC to Ms. Maniari S Ganu, Advocate IOPUC] 3. Two CD Copies ADt(gh g i a) o 2 0 mB 2025 DF..,t .'i.f'' ";;/ HIGH COURT DATED:2410112025 ORDER GRP.No.129 of 2025 ALLOWING THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS '4 W