The High Court · 2025

THE HOIT'BLE SRI JUSTICE IIARSIIVG RAO I{ANDIKOIIDA CIVIL REVISIOIt PEIITIOII No.575 Ot 2O2O Date: 11.12.2O25 Between: Mudraven:r Rajaiah (Died) his LR's Mudderavc:na Chandraiah and others AND ORDER: ...Petitioners ...Respondents This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, against the order passed in I.A.No.697 of 2Ol9 in A.S.(CF).No.3835 of 2OL9 on the file of kincipal District Judge, Karimnagar, wherein the petitioners herein who are ttre appellants,/plaintiffs in the suit in O.S.No.S1 of 2O1O frled a suit seeking recovery of possession. The said suit was dismissed vide order datecl 1O.O8.2O18 by the trial court and the plaintiffs therein failed to substantiate their tifle over the suit schedule property.

2. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioners preferred t:he appeal along with condonation delay petition in A.S.(CF).Nc,.3835 of 2019 before tlee learned Principal District I i I z Judge, Karimnagar. In the Condonation Delay i.e., I.A.No.697 of 2019, there vras a delay of 178 days and the reason cited in the petiti,on was that the petitioners could not file the same within time and the suit was dismissed on 10.08.2O18, and the certified copy of the judgment and decree was furnished to their counsel on

24.LL.2O18 and the petitioners further contended that due to ill health of appellant No.4, she could not approach her cotrnsel and that as her health is not well and as she could not move from bed, due to which the other petitioners who do not know the counsel, could not approach the counsel for obtaining the certified copy of the judgment/decree and after recovery of her health she approached her counsel, and came to lorow that there is delay of 205 days, hence they mentioned as 205 days, but on calculation the delay was found as 178 days.

3. Per Contra, It is contended by the respondents that the petitioners suppressed the real facts with false and baseless averrzrents and further contended that the petitioner No.4 has not mentioned with which disease tJle health condition of the petitioner No.4 was sulfiering and furt]rer contended that the petitioner No.4 has not mentioned what prevented the other petitioners to approach their counsel to file an appeal and the learned trial Court ) 3 without cc,nsidering the said submissions made by both the counsel and also relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in D,@ptnoliltan Plllal tts. S:tde of Keralar has dismissed the petition..

4. Being aggrieved by the same, ttte present revision is filed conterrding that petitioner No.4 has fallen sick and due to her ill health sl:re could not approach her counsel in order to prefer tJre appeal wittrin time and after recovery from ill-health, the petitioners frled the frrst appeal vide A.S'(CF).No.3835 of 2019, dated

31.1O.201-c). The Court below by holding that "the delay cannot be condoned rvithout assigning any reasonable, satisfactory, suffrcient and proper reason and the petitioners failed to show any justifiable cause or wtlid reason," dismissed the petition.

5. It is further contended that the Petitioners are having valuable rights in tl'e suit schedule property and as per tlle legal advise the petitioners have a strong case and fair chances of success in the first appeal. In view of the dismissal of the delay and not giving an opportunity to the petitioners in challenging the possession of the suit by way of lirst appeal is against the settled I ArR 2oo7 (sc) 2624 4 principles of law and hence prayed to allow the revision ad condone the delay of 178 days.

6. Having heard sri Betht venkateshttnrru, rearned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Buchl Bobu,learned counsel for the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioners have contended that there are eight other petitioners but only tl.e petitioner No.4 was looking after the case and she we.s also examined Pw2 besides the other petitioners and it is the case of the petitioners before the trial court trrat as she is onry one who has been pursuing the matter, due to her ill-health as she could not move from the bed, a'd could not approach the counsel. The learned counsel for the respond.ents vehemently opposed ad contended that tl'e rearned triar court has rightry dismissed the application in the absence of any such concrete evidence to show that she was really sick.

7. Having perused the entire materials placed on record, though it appears from the record that the said suit which was filed by tl,e plaintiffs against the respondents/defenda,ts seeking the relief of possession on the ground that the defendants have ilregalry occupied' the suit land after the dismissal of the injunction petition r' 5 I.A.No.344 of 2OO3 in O.S.No.126 of 2OO3, where the injunction petition was dismissed and the said suit was ended in with trial.

8. As it is seen that ttre plaint was filed by the father of the petitioners herein, and that petitioner. Nos.2 to 8 who are the legal heirs of No.l have came on record and that all are married women under the age group of 35 to 75 years. As it is contended that, it is only the petitioner No.4 who is well aware of the case proceedings and she is the only one who was examined as PW2. It shows that the petitioner No.4 who is the one who is taking care of the said suit.

9. It is settled principle of law that even in case where there is a ,lelay of several days in approaching the Court or there may be a delay of few months, the Court ought to have taken liberal app roach by considering the rbasons for delay, the reasons shown with "suflicient cause" has to be established. The rights of the parties' also have to be and if the delay is not condoned or allowed, the rights of the parties which are valuable in nature worrd be alfected, so also, simultaneously any prejudice which is going to be caused to the respondents, also has to be 6 o ( looked into, if the same can be, compensated by way of costs, the present petition for condonation of delay can be condoned. 1()- In the present case, it can be made out that it is petitioner No.4 who has been pursuing the case for herself and on behalf of other petitioners and the other petitioners have no knowledge of tJ.e suit proceedings. There is a specific.contention mad.e in tlre petition, however there is no medical certificate produced before the trial Court which led to the dismissal of tl.e application. During the course of arguments learned counsel for the petitioners tried to place before this court tJ,e medical certificates which were found in his file, the same were not placed before tJ'e trial court for the reasons best known to them. considering the length of delay i.e.17g days caused in filing the appeal and claim that appellants valuable rights are at stake, if delay is not condoned and also the petitioners have been dispossessed from the suit schedule property during t]le pendency. Even in the Judgment of t]'e Honble supreme court in D.Gopinottho,n Ptltrrt us. *ate of Keralahas held as follows: "There is no -dlsnyte in regard to the deray oJ 3320 days in firing the petition for sefting aside the award- When a mandaiory provision is not complied with and when the deray is not propedy, satisfactodrv convincinglryleipiaineo, the court cannot condone the deray, onry on tne sympathetic grouri. rhJ oroers passed by the learned Sub Judge and also by t"he'High Co-urt which far from satisfactory. No reason whats|frer has been'given to condone the inordinate "'nt 7 delay of 33211 days. lt is the well considered principle of law when the delay cannot be condoned without assigning any rcasonable, satisfactory, sufficient and proper reason. Both the Courts have miserably failed to comply and follow the principle laid down by this Court in catena of cases. We, therefore, have no other option except to set aside the order passed by the Sub judge and as affirmed by the High Court. We accordingly set aside both the orders and follow this appeal" When: a legal and valuable right is involved, fhe Courts should ma.l:e endeavor to dispose the case on merits rather than on \ default.

11. [n such case, the law warrants that a liberal approach { t has to be taken to protect the interest of the parties whose rights are going to be alfected, simultaneously keeping in view the prejudice that may be caused to the respondents. Hence, for the said reasons, this Court feels that it is a frt case where the order of the trial Court can be interfered with and the delay can be condoned by imposing certain costs.

12. .3or the above said reasons, the Civil Revision petition is allowed an(l the order passed in I.A.No.697 of 2OL9, is set aside and the deJ.ay of 178 days is condoned by allowing I.A.No.697 of 2019, sub_iect to condition that Rs.2o,O00/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand only) be payable directly to the respondents. On such payment an.d filing of memo before the trial Court, the trial Court 8 rT., '(i shall pnoceed to register the appeal and dispose of the same by following due proced.ure contemplated under law. Miscellaneous petitions, if any ar?e pending, shall stand dismissed Sd/. AHMED ABDULLAH KHAN ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

6. SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To,

1. The Prl. District Judge, Karimnagar, TS. 2. One CC to Sri. BethiVenkateswarlu, Advocate [OpUC] 3. One CC to Sri. K Buchi Babu, Advocate tOpU-CI 4. Two CD Copies PM/BA t-, HIGH COURT DATED:11112t2025 ORDER CRP.No.SIS of 2020 i e , ) ) HES 1 ? 1 t.i? ')n:)E * ALLOWINC} THE CIUL REVISION PETITION 9A