The High Court · 2025

Smt. Sardarmian @ Main Sab (Lalpetolla Mia Sab), Died per L.Rs.,

1. tianeefa Bee, Wo. Sardar Mian, Aged about 70 years, Occ Household, R/o. T. Lingampally Village, Regode Mandal, tr/tedak Dlstrict.

2. l-qbal, S/o. Sardar Mia, Aged about 53 years, Occ Tea Stall, R/o. T. Lingampally Village, Regode Mandal, Medak District. 3. Khader (Died), Per L.Rs., Petitioners/Plaintiff Nos.7 to 12 4. Rafeeqh, S/o. Sardar Mia, Aged about 40 years, Occ Tea Stall, R/o. T. Lingampally Village, Regode Mandal, Medak District.

5. M_alan Bee^(Moglan Bee), Wo. IVlahaboob Mia (D/o. Sardar Mia), Aged about 1! y"grl, Occ Household, Rl/o. T. Lingampatty Vittage, Regode Man-dal, IVIedak District. .l:

6. Razia Bee, Wo. Tajuddin (D/o. Sardar Mia), Aged about 35 years, Occ Household, R/o. T. Lingampally Village, Regode [\Iandal, lt/edak District. 7. Saleema Bee, Wio. late Khader, Aged about 48 years, Occ Household, R/o. . T. Lingampally Village, Regode Mandal, Medak District. b. WaliO, S/o. late Khader, Aged about 25 years, Occ Labour, R/o. T. Lingampally Village, Regode [Iandal, Medak District.

9. Kaleema, Wio. Rafee Mia (D/o. late Khader), Aged about 23 years, Rio. T. Lingampally Village, Regode Mandal, Medak District.

10.Sajid, S/o. late Khader, Aged about 22 years, Occ Labour, R/o. T. Lingampally Village, Regode Mandal, Medak District.

11. Sabera, Wo. lsmail (D/o. late Khader), Aged about 21 years, Occ Household, R/o. T. Lingampally Village, Regode Mandal, Medak District. 'l2.Shaheda, D/o. late Khader, Aged about 18 years, Occ Household, R/o. T. Lingampally Village, Regode Mandal, Medak District. ... Respondents/Petitioners/Plaintiffs

13.Goreknath, S/o. Bheem Rao (Died) '14.The Tahasildar, Regode Mandal, Medak District.

15.The Districi Collector, Medak at Sangareddy. ...Res pondents/Respondents/Defendants lA NO: 1 OF 2019 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 pteased to stay of all further proceedings in OS No. 66 of 2008 on the file of Senior Civil Judge Medak pending CRP. Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri L. Preetham Reddy Counsel for the Respondents: Mrs. Ayesha Tasneem The Court made the following: ORDER TIIE HONOT]RABLE DT.JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI : CTVIL REVISION PETITION No.858 of 2019 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is hled by the respondents/defendant Nos.l to 5 aggrieved by the order, dated

05.03.2019 passed in I.A.No.874 of 2014 in O.S.No.66 of 2008 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Medak.

2. As seen fiom the facts of the case, O.S.No.66 of 2008 is filed by the.father of the plaintiffs on 14.11.2008 for Declaration of Title and consequential possession and rectification of revenue records, in respect of suit schedule agricultural lands. The sole plaintiff died on 07.03.2009 and thereafter the Legal Representatives of the plaintiffs were brought on record, as per the order, dated

08.02.2010 passed in I.A.No.523 of 2009. On 09.03.2010, the suit was dismissed for default, due to non-representation for the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs filed a petition under Order IX Rule 9 of CPC to restore the suit by setting aside the dismissal order in the month of December, 2014 and also filed I.A.No.874 of 2014 for condoning the delay of 1720 days in filing the above petition. 2

3. The plaintiff No.2 flled an affidavit in support of the I ' application stating that defendant Nos.l to 6 formed into an unlawful assembly of more than 100 villagers and with their support, they attacked their house and tea stall and caused damages and threatened to kill them if they proceed further in the suit. They sustained injuries in the said incident. Due to the fear and being economically weak, they never lodged any Police complaint, since the defendants were financially sound, having strong political influence and supporl of the ruling party. The defendants warned them to withdraw the suit, failing which, they would kill them. Due to their fear, they left the village in the midnight and migrated to Hyderabad. Due to the said attack, one of their brother by name Khader (plaintiff No.3) sustained serious shock and subsequently, died on 06.09.2010, leaving behind him the petitioners/plaintiff Nos.7 to 12 as his legal representatives. They could not inform the matter to their counsel at that moment as the priority upon them was escaping llom the clutches of the defendants to save their lives. After formation of Telangana State and due to change of Govemment and political parties, they gained courage and retumed back to their village from Hyderabad with a ::a:! J hope to look after their lands in the village and prayed to condone the ' ' .delay of 1720 days in filing the petition for restoration of the suit.

4. The respondents/defendants filed counter contending that there was an inordinate delay of more than 4 Yz'yeats in filing the petition, the day-to-day delay was not explained. The petitioners/plaintiffs were not diligent and guilty of gross negligence in conducting the suit proceedings. The petitionersiplaintiffs already sold the suit schedule property long back under registered sale deeds to one Upender Reddy and others in the month of July, 2014, much earlier to the filing of the petition. They were no way concemed with the said lands and third parties were in possession of the suit schedule property and prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. On considering the rival contentions and the arguments of both the counsel, the trial Court allowed the application on payment of costs of Rs.3,0001 by the petitioners/plaintiffs to the respondents/defendants on or before 08.03.2019.

6. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.874 of 2014 in O.S.No.66 of 2008, the defendant Nos.l to 5 preferred this revision. .'.,'l 4

7. Heard Sri L.Preetham Reddy, leamed counsel for the r.' petitioners/defendant Nos.l to 5 and Mrs. Ayesha Tasneem, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that no reasonable explanation was given by the respondents/plaintiffs to condone the inordinate delay of more than 4 Yz years in flling the application for restoration of the suit. The trial Court ought not to have exercised its jurisdiction in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs, t:: who were r.rot diligent in prosecuting the proceedings. The impugned order was contrary to the established principles of law and prayed to set aside the order dated 05.03.2019 in I.A.No.874 of 2014 in O.S.No.66 of 2008 on the hle of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Medak.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the trial Court, on considering all the aspects allowed the application filed by the respondents to condone the delay, on payment of costs. The said suit was restored to its f,ile. No prejudice would be caused to the respondents, if the matter was allowed to be continued and evidence was adduced by both the parties to prove their 5 entitlement over the suit schedule propefy and prayed to dismiss the revlslon.

10. Perused the record. As seen from the record, the respondents filed O.S.No.66 of 2008 seeking the ielief of declaration of title, consequential possession and rectification of revenue records in respect ofthe suit schedule agricultural lands.

11. Summons were served on defendant Nos.1 to 6 and as they failed to appear before the Court, they were set ex parte on

01.04.2009 and fresh summons were issued against defendant Nos.7 and 8. In the meanwhile, as sole plaintiff died on 07.03.2009, his legal representatives were brought on record as plaintiff Nos.2 to 6 The suit was dismissed for default on 09.03.2010. The contention of the plaintiffs was that the defendants along with their supporters about 100 in number attacked their house, tea stall and caused damages to their property and threatened to kill them, if they proceed with the suit, as such, due to fear they left the village to save their lives and migrated to Hyderabad. Only after change in the political scenario and after fonnation of Telangana State, they gained courage l i I I ;.:l 6 and retumed back to the village and filed the above application for restoration of the suit, due to which, the delay oicurred.

12. As reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in several cases, it is not the length of the delay which was material for considering the petitions for condonation of delay but the explanation given by the petitioners to see whether it was justifiable or not. It was also a settled principle of law that day-to-day delay need not be explained, but the explanation should cover the entire length of the delay. As tbe explanation given by the respondents/plaintiffs appeared to be justifiable and as substantial rights of the parties are involved in the suit and by condoning the delay, no prejudice would be caused to the defendants, the trial Court allowed the application by condoning the delav.

13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in several cases including in its recent case in Mool Chandrq v. (Jnion of India antl another I held that: "It is not the length of delay that would be required to be considered while examining the plea for condonation ofdelay. It is the cause for delay which has been propounded to be examined. If the cause for delay would fall within the four comers of "sufficient cause", irrespective of the length of delay t Civil Appeal No.8435-8436/2024 [2024 INSC 577 ] t I 7 same deserves to be condoned. However, if the cause shown is insufficient, inespective of the period of delay, same could not be condoned".

14. The Hon'ble Apex Court further observed that: "lf negligence can be attributed to the appellant, then necessarily the delay which has not been condoned by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Codrt deserves to be accepted. However, if no fault can be laid at the doors of the appellant and cause shown is sufficient then we are of the considered view that both the Tribunal and the High Court were in error in not adopting a liberal approach or justice oriented approach to condone the delay."

15. This Court does not find any illegality or irregularity in the order of the trial Court in allowing the application by condoning the delay iri filing the petition for setting the aside the dismissal order of the suit, dated 09.03,2010. The explanation given by the respondents/plaintiffs provides a sufficient cause for condonation of delay. As the Courts should adopt a pragmatic and liberal approach in administering justice and advancing substantial justice is of prime importance, this Court does not f,rnd any effor in the order of the trial Court

16. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, confirming the order, dated 05.03.2009 passed in I.A.No.874 of 2014 in O.S.No.66 of 2008 by the leamed Senior Civil Judge, Medak. However, as the suit is pertaining to the year 2008, the trial Court is .+i 8 directed to dispose off the matter as expeditiously as possible and both the counsel representing the plaintiffs and defendants before the trial Court are directed to co-operate with the trial Court for expeditious disposal of the matter. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- K AMMAJI AS ts ANT REGISTRAR L) SECTION OFFICER

1. The Senlor Civil Judge, at Medak. 2. One CC to Sri L. preetham Reddy, Advocate [OpUC] 9 9n" CC to Mrs. Ayesha Tasneem, nOrolat" 1OeUt1 4. Two CD Copies To, kam/PR /,' HIGH COURT DATED:2010212025 ORDER CRP.No.858 of 2019 I a ,? 5 o o H1 E s 14 ( r 2c\ 2 3 APn 2025 ,4-.:-srrarC't',-O * DISMISSING OF THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION 7/z /: /2,