The High Court · 2025

..Revision Petitioner/ Petitioner/ AppellanU Defendant AND 2 3 Nakrekanti Linga Swamy S/o Chennaiah, Aged. 50 years, Occ. Business, R/o Ravindra Nagar, Locality Nalgonda Town and Dislrict. A.Karunakar Reddy, S/o Hanumantha Reddy, Aged. 55 years, Occ. Business, R/o H.No. 6-2-1984 Thirumalanagar, Nalgonda. Maram Sathi Reddy, S/o Venkat Reddy, Aged 45 years, Occ. Business, R/o Kodandapuram, H/o Cheruvugattu (V), Narketpally (M) Natgonda District. (Respondents No. 2 and 3 are not necessary parties to this CRP) ...RESPONDENTS lA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 the operation of Judgment and decree dt. 2211012018 in C.S.No. 94 of 2011 on the file of Honourable Junior Civil Judge, at Nalgonda pending disposat of CRP . Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. KIRAN PALAKURTHI Counsel for the Respondent No,1 : - The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE K.SUJANA CML REVISION PETITION No.2O8 OF 2O2t ORDER: This Ctivil Rcvision petition is hled by pcritioncr/ appcllant againsr tht' order datecl 04. lI.2O2O in I..A.No..594 ol 20 l9 in [.)n-regrsrerecl A.S(SR)No. 1a87 ot 2Ot9 in O.S.No.94 ol 20l l on rhc l-ile of the principal Disr rict zrnd Sessions .Ir-rdg<' at Nalgond:r.

2. For the sztke of convenier-rce, hereinafter, tlrr.parties w'ill be rcl'crrecl;rs per their arra-y before the trial Court

3. The facr s of rhe case are that the plaintiff filed rhe suit against de[t.nclant Nos. I to 3 lbr perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule propcrty i.e., agricultural rlrv land to an (.xte l of Ar:.0 I I gts., situated in Survev No.45l of Ye llarech,guclr'rn Village, Narketpally Mandal, Nalgoncla District. AI'ter tlurt, dclendanL No.2, whs was looking alier the case on belrirlf of other petitioners erlso, suffering rvith jaunclicc. As dt.li:r-rdanr No.2 did not participate ir-r the proceedings, tl're trial Court clecreed the suit i\s ex p(u1e ()n 22.1O.201a. Nou, br. '"r,a1, of impugned applicatior-r, thc revision petitiont.r- sought to conclone the dela_y of l1g cta.r,s in filing thc application to set aside thc ex parte decr.tc datecl 22.lO.20ls. Ir is 6[s r:ase of revision petitioner thilt \ 2 (RP \. :t):i ot :t): I hc could not appear before the trial Cor-rr t on 22.10.2018 due to ill health. It is stated that the defendantNo.2 has not attendcd due to ill hcalth and he could rtot represent thc matter in the furthcr proceedings resultirtg into passing of ex parte orders on 22.1O.2018. Thus, there is a dclery of I lti days in filing the petition to set asidc Lhe jr-rdgmcnt and decree dated 22.1O.2018, wl-rich is neither '"r'anton nor willful, but for the reasons stated abovc. Soon aftcr obtaining the rclevant. paPers of suit procceclirtgs, d<-'fcndant. No.2 fited application to condone the dela.t' oi L 18 clal's in filing thc petition to set aside the ex parle decrce datcd

22.tO.20t8.

4. By thc impugned order, the petition fited b.y dcfendants un<lcr Order 4l Rulc 3-A( 1) of CPC atrd reitd r.t,ith Scction 5 of the I.imitation Act was dismissed re'jccting the rcquest for condoning the delay o[ I 1B dzrys in filing thc application to set aside the ex patle clecrec, clated

22.10.2018.

5. Heard Sri Kiran Palakurthi, Icarned counscl for thc rcvision pctitioner/ de fcndant. Though noticc u'zrs servcd none appearecl on bchalf of rcspondcttt. lreruscd thc male rial availal>lc on rccord. ( Rl, ito lot 0t )0) t

6. Learrrecl r:ctLrnse'l [or the revisior-r petitione r cont(,nded tlt.iI sin(:e revision petitioner/ de fendan t No.2 sulferc.l rtith .Jaturdice, I-re fell ill from 20.12.2OB ill

22.04.2019, us strr:h hc coulcl not visit his counsel. He furthcr contcncled tltat thc. trial Court failed to appreciatc lhe rt'zrsons nren I ioned by the revision petitioner. He also contencled th.lt thc trial Court also lailed to see that the suit is in respect ol' zrgrir.r.rlture land and valuable rights of thc parti('s ar-t involvccl. In this regard, he ptacecl relianc:c on tlte lrrrlgmenl of the Apex Court in Esha Bhattacharjee u. Managing Cornrnittee oJ Raghunathapur Nafar Acad.emg dnd othersi wherein the Apcx Cotrrt u,hile interpreting the provisions of Seclion 5 o[ t ]rt: I-imitation Act regarding condonation of delay, summ:rrize cl t he principles as follows:-

21.1 Thct: shor-rld be a liberal, pragmatic, justic <, orrt:nted, non-pedantic approach while dealing u.ith trn :rpplication for condonation of clelar,, lbr ll.rc courrts are not supposed to legalise injusticc br-rl are obliged [o remove injustice. )1.2 'lhc terms "sufficient cause,, should be understoocl ir-r their proper spirit, philosophy ancl plrrp()s(' r-t,gtrrd bcing had to the fact that these Lcrms il re ba sicall-r, clastic and are to be apptied in prolle r pcrspcctive to the obtaining fact- situation. ll0ll Ilr \( { 6J, 4 (RI'\t':t)ttof:t):l \ Substantial justicc being pararnount and the tcchnical considcrations should not

21.3 pivotal be given undue and uncalled for cmphasis. 21.4 No presumption can be attached to dcliberate causation o[ delay but, gross negligence on thc part of the connscl or lit(ant is to be takcn nolc of. 21.5 Lack o[ bona ficlcs imputablc to a part.y seeking condoneition of delay is a signiticarni ar-ril rclcvanl [act. 21.6 It is to be kept in mind that adherencc to strict proof should not affect public justice and cause public mischicf bccause thc courts .rrc rcquircd to bc vigilant so that in thc ultim;rtc eventuate there is no real failure ofjusticc. 21.7 The concept of liberal approach has Lo encapsulate the conccption of rcasonablencss and it cannot be allowed a totallv unfettered l-r<:c play. 2 1.8 Tl'rere is a clistinction betwce n inordinatc dclay ancl a delay of short d uration or fcrrv days for to the former doctrine o[ prejudice is attractcd whereas to the lattcr it mav not be "warrarrts attlacted. Thal apart, lhc first onc strict approach whereas the second calls for er libe ral dclineation . 7 The Scction 5 of Limitation Act reads as undcr : "Section 5 in The Li'4I;ito:tion Act, 7963: ,5 Extension of prescribed period in certain cases. _ Any appeal or onA appltcation, other tho.n an applicatiort under any of the prouisions of Order XXI ol tha Code of Ciuit procedure. I 908 15 oi t aOS1. nu11 be admitted aJter the prescribed pinod, if thl oppellant or the applicant satjsfes the court tiat he had suJjicient ca.use for not preferring the appeal or rnaking the applictttion within such period. Explanation.- 'l'h.e fact that th.e appellant or Lhc epplicatt ucts rt-risled bg a ng orcler, pra<.lice or lutlqm.ettt of the lligh Court in ctscertaininq or ) s(s../ cRP No 1lU ol )r)l I coitputitt(J the prescribed peiod mtLlJ be suJ-ficient cari-r,' rr,iilri,r lh? meaninq of this section" A plirrn r('irdirtg of the above makes it abundantly clear that il thc revision petitioner satisfies lhe (lourt with suffrcicut ('eLls(' lor trot liling the petition rvithin the stiputatecl 1l'rio<l, the n the said petition can be allowed It is pertrnenL to note that thc trial Court passcd ex 8. paffe decrct' ctn 22.10-2018 against defendants zrnd as the revision pt'titioner/clcfenclant No 2 was suffering with jzrunclice, lrc dicl not zrttended the case belore the trial Court' Immediatelr, aftt'r rccoveu', he obtaint:d tl're relevant papers ol thc sr-rit pro<:t'cciings and iiled application to r;ondone the delay ol I I8 clavs in l-lling the petition to set aside ex parte decrcc datt'rl 22. 1O..20 18. Furthermore , the relit:l' sought in the suit is lbr perpctual injunction of Agreement o[ salc' I lence, this Cor-trt is inclinecl to give an opportunity to the revision l)('titioncr/dcfendant No'2 to contest the suit insteacl ol rrpl>c:rsing the milttcr in a narron' compass or on technicaliti.s ittlrl ltlso in viert' of thc observation oI juclgmet'rt ol tht' Apex Court' c.). At't'o rd irlgl-r', the Civil Revision Pe tition is allou'ed setting irsiclt: lhc or<lcr clated 04'l1 2O2O passed by the 6 .14.t..,/ ( RP No.)t),\ ol )t): I Principal District ancl Scssions Judgc, Nalgonda in I.A. No. 594 o[ 20i9 in Un-registered A.S(SR)No. l4B7 of 2019 in O.S.No.94 of 20ll is allowed. There shall be no ordcr as ro Miscellancous petitions, if any pencling, shall stand \ closcd To //TRUE COPYII Sd/- T. TIRUMALA DEVI ASSIS A T REGISTRAR TION OFFICER

1. Itr" P-rirrcipat District qE-gqi9jol9 Judge ar Natgonda. 2. One CC to SRI. KTRAN pALAKUnfHt ea'v-ocai" fbpUct 3. Two CD Copies k Lrl/gh o HIGH COURT DATED:211O112025 ORDER CRP.No.208 of 2021 ( o- -) (-) t) l{E ST4r 1 €' o/ 2 4 FEB 2025 '.i "i"r\ ;1 * o taoz, rr rri / ALLOWIN(;'tHE, CIVI l, ttl.!'ISI()N I)t,. ilTt()N ,{ 2d