A.Mathalaimuthus. vs Subba Reddy (Died) by LRs. and others v. Special Deputy collector (LA)

Smt.G Suryakala, Wo G.Venkat Reddy D/o P. Narsimha Reddy, aged 34 years Occ. House wife R/o H.No. 2-14-57, Beerappagadda, Uppal, Ranga Reddy District. ...RespondenUPetitioner/Plaintiff Parvathi Srinivas Reddy, S/o Late Parvathi Narsimha Reddy, Aged about 32 years, Occ Lorry Driver Rlo 17 -2-628123, Vinayaka Nagar Madannapet, Saidabad, Hyderabad. Parvathi Malla Reddy, S/o Late Parvathi Narsimha Reddy, Aged about 30 years, Occ. Lorry Driver Rlo 17 -2-628123, Vinayaka Nagar Madannapet, Saidabad, Hyderabad. Smt.Radhamma, Wo Late Parvathi Narsimha Reddy Aged about 65 years, Occ. Household Rlo 17 -2-628123, Vinayaka Nagar Madannapet, Saidabad, Hyderabad. ...Respondents/Respondent Nos.1 to 3/Defendant Nos.1 to 3 lA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 stay all further proceedings in OS.NO.1819 ol 2019 on the file of the Vll Additional Senior Civil Judge, R.R Dist at L.B.Nagar pending disposal of the main in the interest of the Justice. Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri M Rama Rao Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Sri Mohd Mumtaz Pasha Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 : _ _ _ The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI CML REVISION PETITION No.160 of 2020 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners - respondent Nos.4 and 5 - defendant Nos.4 and 5, challenging the docket order dated 19.07.2019 in S.R No.5603 of 2019 in O.S.Sr.No. 12335 of 2004 passed by the VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B Nagar in allowing the petition filed by the respondent No. I - plaintif,lunder Section 148 read with Section l5l ofCPC.

2. Heard Sri M.Rarna Rao, leamed counsel for the petitioners and Sri Mohd.Mumtaz Pasha, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the respondent No. I herein - plaintiff filed a suit on 22.11.2004 before VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar for declaration of registered sale deed document No. 1555 of 2004 dated 31.01.2004 in favour of the petitioners herein-respondent No. 2 to 4 as null and void. The plaint was returned with objections on 03.06.2006. The respondent No. I re-presented the plaint on

29.03.2019 vide S.R.No.5603 o12019 with an inordinate detay of 43 l3 days by filing a petition under Section 148 read with Section 151 of CPC for condoning the delay. The Court below through docket order dated 19.07.2019 had passed 2 an order condoning the delay without giving any reasons. The court below had not taken into consideration the affidavit filed in support of the petition for condoning the delay. No reasons were given by the respondent No. I -plaintiff for condoning the delay of nearly 12 years. No suit at the stage of numbering can be kept pending for a period of 12 years. The onty ground given for condoning delay was that the suit bundle was mixed with other bundles in the advocate office and not traced out. No affidavit was filed by the advocate stating the same. [n the absence of filing the affidavit by the advocate, the reasons stated by the plaintiffcould not be taken as a gospel truth. There was no case pending from 03.06.2006 to 29.03.201g. The petitioners also perfected their title by adverse possession. The time limit for challenging the registered sale deeds was within 3 years, whereas, the suit has been re-presented with a condone delay of(12) years. The petitioners had perfected their right and title being in possession of the suit land since the date of purchase under registered sale deed and prayed to set aside the docket order dated lg.o7.2olg passed in S.R No.5603 of 2019 in o.S.Sr.No. 12335 of 2004 on the file ol the vll Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B Nagar.

3.1. Leamed counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex court in P.K.Ramchandran vs. State of Kerata and anotherr, Union of India and others vs. Tata yodogawa Limited and another2, ' 1tlez1 z scc sse rlzots;escc roz 3 PathapatiSubbaReddy(Died)byLRs.andothersv.SpecialDeputy Collector (LA)', of the High Court of A.P in S'A'Khadeer Vs' G'V'R' a, of the High Court of Madras in S.S.Mathalaimuthu v. Anjaneyulu A.Mathalaimuthus.

4. On a perusal of the judgment relied by the leamed counsel for the petitioners in P.K.Ramchandran Vs. State of Kerala and another (supra-l)' the matter is pertaining to condonation of delay in filing of appeal but not with regard to delay in representing the matter. In Union of India and others Vs. Tata Yodogawa Limited and another (supra-2) as well as in Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by LRs. and others v. Special Deputy collector (LA) (supra-3), the matter was pertaining to the application for condonation of delay in preferring the S.L.P. The case in s.A.Khadeer vs. G.v.R. Anjaneyulu (supra-4) delivered by the High Court of A.P is a matter pertaining to exercise of the discretion by the Court to extend time for payment of Court fee and not a matter pertaining to condonation of delay in representing the plaint' The High court of Madras in S.S.Mathalaimuthu v. A.Mathalaimuthu (supra -5)' held that: "Ordinarity, 'delay in representation' is a matter between the Applicant and the concemed Court. It is also true that there is a distinction between 'a petition to condone delay' in proper presentation in terms of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 I 2024 Lawsuit (sc) 305 ' 2ooi (5) ALD 577 t 2016 scc online Madras 2591 4 and 'petition to condone delay' in representing the papers in time. In fact, the length and breadth of delay is not a factor. However, a Court of Law is primarily concemed with the 'acceptability ofthe explanation' for the delay.,'

5. As such, this court considers that the above cases are not applicable to the facts of the present case, as the same is pertaining to delay in representing the matter, but not delay in filing the appeal. As observed by the High court of Madras in S.S.Mathalaimuthu v. A.Mathalaimuthu (supra-S), the delay in representation is the matter between the applicant and the concemed court.

6. Leamed counser for the respondent on the other hand submitted that the suit was numbered as o.S No. l8l 9 of 2019 and status qao orders were also passed by the court in I.A No.733 of 2019. challenging the same, cRp No.2347 of 2022 was filed by the purchasers, who purchased through the petitioners herein. The orders passed in I.A No.733 of 2019 in o.S No. lg l g of 2019 dated 30.07.2019 was set aside and the court directed the trial court to reconsider the orders passed in the said t.A afresh and to pass appropriate orders within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of a copy o[the order on 10.02.2023.

6.1. Leamed counsel for respondent No.l relied upon several judgments in support ofhis contentions. 5

7. As seen from the judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in T.Krishnaswamy Vs. Maniyamma6, an application under Section 148 of CPC for enlargement of time cannot be construed as a suit or appeal or application lor review or revision.

8. As per the judgment of the erstwhile High Court of A.P in Kalaga Krishna Rao and another Vs. Kalaga Dibbaiah @ Surya Rao and othersT, a plain reading of Section 148 of CPC would show that the discretion is vested in the Court to enlarge the time from time to time, even though, the period originally fixed for doing any act may have expired. This judicial discretion has to be exercised on sound principles. When absolute discretion is vested, it would be improper to interpret the provision in a curtailing manner, by reading the rules of natural justice or a requirement of giving notice to the opposite parties. Such interpretation would lead to absurdities. It is well settled that while interpreting the provisions of the enactment, the Court cannot introduce the words or requirements, which are specifically excluded by the legislature. It is also well settled that judicial discretion has to be exercised to secure ends of justice in the case of necessity. When the notice is not contemplated and when there is no prejudice caused to any party, it is not proper to read the requirement ofnotice under Section 148 ofCPC. u 2006 aLD zgo ' 2ooq q ALD iE3. 6

9. There is no provision in CpC for fixing the time for representing the retumed bundre and there is no prescribed maximum period arso within which the returned proceedings has to be re-presented into the Court. The condonation of delay in re-presentation of a praint is strictly a matter between the court and the plaintiff, which cannot be equated as an application under Section 5 0f Limitation Act and the order cannot be assaired on the ground of want of notice to other side or non observation of principles of natural justice. The revision petitioners have no rocus standi and have no say in the matter of condonation ofdelay in representing the plaint.

10. As per the judgment of the erstwhile High Courr of A.p in K'Prakash Rao vs' Singareni Coreries Company Limited and anothers, ir was held that: "When a suit or an application is filed within time and whcn the registry of the court returns the papen for compliance with the objections pointed out and grants time for representation and when thc same are represented beyond the time specified for representation, it has been the practice of the courts in our State, for several decades, to insist upon the party to file an application seeking condonation ofdelay in representation and such applications are disposed of on merits without notice to the other side. As the time for representation is fixed bv the court itself and not by law, the court has undoubted power to condone such type of delays in the exercise of its porver under Section l4g of the Code of Civil procedure. An orrler passed by th te court exerqiSing discretion to condone the deia1, ,(1993)lALT5r7(s.B) -- 7 in representation cannot be questioned by the opposite party to the proceedings on the ground of want ofnotice. Such a plea is plainly untenable. No questions for adjudication, either under substantive law or procedural law especially under the Law of Limitation, arise at that stage. The procedure for condoning the delay in representation cannot be treated as that one under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Indian Statistical Institute v. Associated Builders. (AIR 1978 SC 335),,.

11. In the judgment of the erstwhile High Court of A.p in Gandeay Sh ravan Kumar Vs. D.Srinivasulu (died) as per LRs. and otherse, it was held that:

11. There is no provision inCpC, which prescribes the maximum period within which a retumed proceeding should be represented into the Court. Therefore, I am ol the opinion that Section 148 CPC would not apply to the cases of retum of the appeals and other proceedings for compliance with the objections taken by the office, and delay in representation of those proceedings would be govemed by Section I5l Ct.p.C., as held in Kanduri Sahu case (supra). So inspite ofthe fact that amended Section 148 C.P.C. limits the extension of time, in total, to a maximum period of 30 days, that time limit does not govem the representation of the retumed proceedings for compliance with the objections taken by the Registry.',

12. A Division Bench of the High Court of Madras in Assistant Manager, lndian Overseas Bank, Chennai Vs. Managing Director, M/s I 1 I t ' zoo+ 1r; auo o:l 8 Global Powertech Equipment private Limited, chennai and othersr0, held that: "Before the plaint is numbered whatever happens in the numbering of the ptaint is a matter between the plaintiff and the courr. Admission of the plaint is the court,s .iob. The condonation of the delay in representation of the plaint is strictly a matter between the court, on one hand, and the person who filed the proceeding on the other. At that slage, the persons who were proposed as opposite parties in the plaint really have no locus standi. They cannot have any say in the matter oldelay or its condonation".

13. Thus, the petitioners have no locus standi in the matter of condonation of delay in representing the praint and the revision filed by them challenging the said order is not maintainable. As such, this court considers that the revision filed by the petitioners - defendant Nos.4 and 5 against the docket order dated 19-07.2019 in S.R No.5603 of 2019 in o.S.Sr.No. 12335 of 2004 passed by rhe vII Additional Senior civir Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B Nagar, is not maintainable and the revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

14. Accordingly, the civil Revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// ASSIST Sd/. V. KAVITHA T EGISTRAR SEOT N OFFICER \ To,

1. The Vll Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar 2. One CC to Sri M Rama Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Mohd Mumtaz Pasha, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies ADK w ( thE. SI4 ,( 3, ot r$ zM itZl (, ( * ,r,1rCHr:O s' HIGH COURT DATED:29t01tZO2S ORDER CRP.No.160 of Z02O DISMISSING THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS bA{ W