The High Court · 2025

Order

This Civil Revision Petition is filed againsr rh,. ordcr dated I1.10.2021, passed by the Principal District Judgc, l{arrga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar in I.A.No.883 ol 2021 in A.S.S. t I,Jo.59.1 I of 202t.

2. Heard Sri Srikanth Hariharan, leamed counsr.l lbr the petitioner, and Sri Mummaneni Srinivas Rao, learnerl cor.rnscl fbr the respondent.

3. Brief thcts ol the case are that respondent lll,:cl suit in O.S.No.766 o1'2006 on the file of II Additional Senior CLvil Judge, Ranga Reddy I)istrict, for partition and separate posscssion ol'suit schedule properly, against det'endant by name 1'.!'iirrlr Kislrore. The suit rvas decreed granting preliminary decrec, r.i, 1t, judgrnent and decree dared 26. 11.2019, declaring rhat rhe plairrtil'f ancl rhe defbndant are cntitled to % share each in the suit schedrrlc propcr.ty. 4, The petitioner herein, rvho claimed to be rr ile <ll' the delendant-late I'.Vijaya Kishorc, prelerred thc appeal ar3air-rst the said judgment and decree along with an appli..ation vitle I.A.No.883 ol-202 I ro condone rhe delay o1522 days in prel-erring 1 {, 2 LNA, J CRP.No.E50 of 2024 I I the appeal. In the said application, it was averred that the petitioner married the delendant on 06. I 2.2007 at Arya Samaj, Hyderabad; that her husband was sullering lrom several health ailments and he was diagnosed with heart enlargement and other cardiac problems and was under treatment since the year 2018 and he expired on20.10.2020 due to heart stroke. lt was further averred that passing of judgment and decree dated 26. ll.20l9 in O.S No.766 of 2006 was not inlormed by the counsel on record either to the petitioner or to her husband and that when the respondent came to house of petitioner in the first week olFebruary,202l and threatened to vacate the house and handover the possession to her, as she succeeded the suit, the petitioncr came to know about passing of judgment. Thereafter, she approached the counsel and applied'for certified copies ol the judgment on 27.02.2021 and obtained the same on 22.03.2021 and hence, the delay occurred in preferring the Appeal

5. Counter was filed by the respondent opposing the said apptication and it was contended that the petitioner is neither wife of the deceased delendant nor possess any legal status or right or authority to file appeal against the judgment passed by the trial J L\A, J CRP..\o.850 of 2024 Couft. It was further stated that the defendant hirnsr:lf was an advocate, rvho contested the matter, and the trial Court passed a preliminary decree after full-fledged trial.

5. I . It was furlher averred that the defendant marrir:d cne Rajani and they were blessed with one son by name Adithya, who. after death ofthe defendant, appeared in the suit proceedi rgs and final decree was also passed in the said suit. Hence, tlLe petitioner, without any legal status or right approached the Court w,ith unclean hands and thus, prayed to dismiss the application.

6. On considering the pleadings of both the parties, the First Appellate Couft dismissed the application vide impugned order dated 11.10.2023 with an observation that the suit was filed in the year 2006 and the petitioner claims to l.rave married t,te def'endant in the year 2007, but, she failed ro show that she is lep,ally wedcled wife ol the defendant and further, the petitioner, except stating thar she was not aware of the suit proceedings for more thrrn ten years, failed to show any reasonable cause for condonation ol inor.dinate delay in filing the Appeal. Challenging the said order, rhe present Revision Petition is filed. 4 LNA, J CRP.No.850 o/ 2021

7. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submitted that the First Appeltate Court dismissed the application on hypothetical grounds without properly appreciating the cogent reasons given by the petitioner for condonation of delay. He lurther subrnitted that the First Appellate Court erred in going into the merits ol the case as to whether the petitioner is first wife or second wife of the deceased defendantwhileconsideringtheapplicationforcondonationof detay and thus, has passeil the cryptic impugned order, which is unsustainable, and accordingly, the same is liabte to be set aside'

8. Per contra, leamed counsel for the respondent submitted that petitioner has not placed sufficient material on record to show that she was married to the defendant and as such' she is a stranger/third party to the suit and has no legal right or authority to file the appeal and hence, the First Appetlate Courl has rightly dismissed the application since the petitioner failed to show sufficient and valid reasons for condonation of inordinate delay and therefore, the impugned order warrants no interference by this Court and thus, prayed to dismiss the Revision' g. A perusal of the record would disctose that petitioner .f]-ir1a to have manied the defendant on 06'12'2007 and a \ \ ) LNA, J C.?P.No.E50 of 2024 certificate dated 06. 12.2007 issued by Arya Samaj, IiyCenabad is placed on record, and that since the date ofmaniage, she had been residing in the suit schedule propefty along with the d,:fendant. The petitioner has placed on record the ration card in which her name is shown as wif'e ol the defendant. The petitioner also filed Savings Bank passbook, as per which, the said Account stood jointly in the names ol the delbndant and herscll. She has also filel trer Aaclhar card which shows her place of residence as the siui! schedule property. From tl.re said documents, it is evident that r.he petitioner manied the dct'endant in Arya Samaj and had been rr:sirJing along with him in the suit schedule property.

10. It is interesting to note that the respondent apltrc,ached the petitioner to vacate the suit schedule property in the year 2021 , i.e., after the death of the defendant and about I t/z lears tfter passing of preliminary decree. The only ground shown by the ltetitioner for the delay is that her deceased husband has never i,tfcrmed her about the pendency of the suit and she came to know about the same only when the respondent approached her in the ,irst week of February, 202 l, threatening her to vacate the sr_ it schedule proff:fty. 6 LNA..1 C RP.l\o.850 of 2024 I l. That apart, as regards the mcrits of the case, it is relevant to note that the suit schedule propefty was gifted to the deceased defendant by his mother and thus, the said property becomes the sel fl-acquired property ol the deceased defendant'

12. Prima facie, the documents filed by the petitioner shows that she is wedded to the deceased defendant' Furthermore' the delendant as D.W-l deposed that the petitioner is his second wife' However, the validity and legality of the documents and the aspect ol mariage ol the petitioner with the defendant have to be gonc into and decided by the Court after detailed enquiry' Therefore' at the threshotd, in an application fited for condonation of delay in filing the Appeat, the First Appellate Court ought not to have gone into the merits of the case and unilaterally decided that the petitioner is not able to show that she is legally wedded wife ol the deceased defendant and declined to condone the delay' 13. As regards the aspect of condonation of delay' the judgment of the Hon'bte Supreme Court in N'Balakrishnan Vs' M.Krishnamurthyt is relevant to be taken note of' wherein at paras 9 and 10, it is hetd as hereunder: --' &998) 7 scc 123 ,, asnD) pooS D olut ta.tolsuDt! plnok asnD) pDq D autt q)nsJb,''ldxa allt uo asnD)aq tou st stlollDnlts tu)tallp ut trno) alll Sutll)Do.tddD ,tol paxlJ[ ltLull autJ .a)!]snr lDt)uDlsqns a)uD^pD ot puD satubd aq) uaawaq alndstp ary aru).pnfpD oi st l)no) o lo uorltunf ,Ortwrtd aq1 :snqt st )JuDts Juila//lp D tlcns ni[ uo'^2a) aqJ () I 'tno) "taxol aql lo uotsnlcuoc aql Iq lalaruwDllun uata Surpuy[ utro sll oJ atuo) ot t.mo) .tortadns qcns o1 uado s! 1! pun qsa.{o {o1ap at/r *{ uwoqs asnD) aL raplsuo) ot aa-{ aq nnool 1,fi1o) Jo Jadns aqt 'sasD) qcns u1 {o1ap aqt auopuo) ol sasn/a.t 1se3 1s$ aqt uaq* "talpw luata/fip D st tt ruB 'as.ta^fii .to {n.4t q.tn rc spunotB alqDualun illoqh uo sDM uotlal)stp to anctaxa aql ssalun 'uotl:trpsttnf lDuot!:t^ ut ssal q)nru '8urpu1[ qcns qntstp toLr plnoqs 1.tno3 tcr.tadns aq! qlDuttou puD uottar).-!p.[o asrc.taxa aNttsod /o qnsa.t aW s! 1! tuat)!J{/ns so uotlotrttldxa aqt stdD)D Lmo) aql nuo itoi)Dlstlrts s1 .loa"taql uoltounlcxa ary sD pauopuo) aq uD) a8uo.t 3uo7,uat lo to1a1.t sasD) )aqlo utDl,la) ul sDataqfi 'uortout:t1dxa alqorlacco lo ryon ot anp alqDuopuotun aq {ow aBuot lsal.toqs'lo lopp sarutlawos uottalt.t.' .i1tro aqt st uottout:t1dxa aql lo &!l!qoldar)D 'ratlDw ou st iolap lo tltlluaT ltutl utola) o utqu6 s1 inlap aql /t iluo pastJ.tax) aq uDc uotl )stp Ll)ns lDql ios 1ou saop 1cy uotlDinttl ary /o 9 uolpas tno) aql to uotftr)slp .lo DyDul D s1 to1ap lo uoltDuopuo) lDqi )ltDluotxD s! tl 6,. raoz lo os g'ot 'da) f 'vN1 L 8 LNA, J CRP.No.850 of 2024 ^ .t

14. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly; that the words "sufficient cause" under Section 5 ol the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also observed that it must be remembered that in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part of litigant concemed. That alone is not enough to tum down his plea and shut the door against him at the threshold. If the explanation does not smack of mala fldes or it is not put fofth as part of a dilatory strategy, the Court must show utmost consideration to the suitor.

15. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Courl in M-K.Prasad Vs. P.Arumugam', h.ld thut in construing Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Court has to keep in mind that discretion under the section has to be exercised to advance substantial justice. The Court has a discretion to condone or refuse to condone the delay as is evident from the words "may be admitted" used in the Section' 2 2oor AIR scw 2810 f 9 LNA, J CRP.No.850 of 2024

16. In the light of the above rario laid down b.i the Hon'ble Apex Court in N,Balakrishna,s case (cited sr-rpra) and M.K.Prasad's case (cited supra) and lor the foregoin,3 reasons and also keeping in view the totality ol lacts and circumr;tances oi.the case, this Courl deems it desirablc to alford an opportunity to the petitioner to putforth her case and substantiate her clairn over the suit schedule property, instead orthrowing out at the threshold on the ground of delay. As valuable rights of the parties ar: involved I I in the immovable property, it is appropriate and desilable that the case be decided on merits instead ol throwing out and re- ecting the claim of the petitioner on technicalities. 17. In the light of rhe above, this Courl is olthe opinion that the First Appellate Courl has failed to properly apprec ate the facts and circumstances ol the case and the reasons oiI:re,d by the petitioner for condonation of delay in proper perspe,:tive and therefore, the impugned order warants interference by this Court. 18. Accordingly, this Revision is allowed, setring aside the order dated 11.10.2023, passed by the principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy Disrrict ar L.B.Nagar in I.A,No.gg3 of 2021 in l0 LNA, J CRP.No.850 of 2024 ,ar\ A.S.S.R.No.594l ol 2021 and consequently, IA'No.883 of 2021 stands allowed.

19. Interim order granted by this Court in I.A.No.2 of 2024' dated 20.02.2025 stands vacated.

20. Pending miscellaneous applications, il any' shall stand closed. No costs. //TRUECDPY/ / S /- M.OSMAN ALI BAIG ISIANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L'B Nagar.

2. OnE CC to Sri Srikanth Hariharan, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Mummaneni Srinivasa Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies. JCK/gh HIGH COURT DATED:11l06/2025 ORDER CRP.No.850 of 2024 Allowing the C.R.P. without costs \.r- /,' -> l,J :i'-' 0ll iEP 21tr Or ),-irt(,r i )