The guidelines for condoning delay as per Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunolthpur Nafar Acadanng and others,t are as follouLs

Mr. Ranjith Kumar Mahankali, S/o. Rajeshwar Rao Mahankali, Age: 39 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.29lSRT, 6-3-841/22, Ameerpet Colony, Behind tvlCH Market, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. ... Res po n de nURes po n de nUPla intiff Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Sardar Jasbeer Singh Counsel for the Respondent: Sri N. Krishna Sumanth Civil Revision Petition No.984 of 2024 Petition filed under Section 115 of C.P.C. to set aside the order dated 12-12-2023 passed in LA.No.569 & 570 of 2023 in O.S.No.'162 of 2020 on the file of the court of the lll Additional District and sessions Judge-cum-ll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ivledchal-Malkajgiri District, at Kukatpally. Between: Mr. Mohammed Farooq, S/o. Business, R/o. Flat No. 250, Hyderabad. Late Mr. D Block, Hazi Dawood, Age: 57 years, Occ. Krathi Shikara Complex, Panjagutta, ...AppellanUPetitioner/Defendant AND Mr. Raniith Kumar lrrlahankqll, _Slo Rajeshwar Rao Mahankali, Age: 39 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No.29lSRT, 6-3-841/22, Ameerpet Colony, Behind-MCH Market, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. ...RespondenURespondenUplaintiff lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under section 15-l cPC praying that in the circumstances stated rn the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of Judgment and Decree dated 28-03-2023 passed in O.S,No. 162 ot 2020 on the file of the lll Additional District and Sessions Judge_ cum-ll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, at Kukatpally. Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Sardar Jasbeer Singh Counsel for the Respondent: Sri N. Krishna Sumanth The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT I THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA C L MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.17O of 2024 AND CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.984 of 2024 CounSel lor the appellant/ petitioner: Sri Sardar Jasbeer Singh Counscl for the respondent: Sri N.Krishna Sumanth COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Justice P.Sree SudlL.t) Both the C.M.A.No. 17O of 2024 and C.R.P.No.9B4 of 2024 are filed against the Common Order of the trial Court dated 12.12.2023 passed in [.A.Nos.57O and 569 of 2023 in O.S.No.162 of 2O2O

2. Parties hereinafter referred to as plaintiff ald defendant as arrayed before the trial Court in O.S.No.162 ol 2O2O, for the sal<t: of convenrence

3. Initially, piaintiff had filed a suit uide O.S.No.162 of 2O2O tor recovery of an amount of Rs.80,72,250/- against the defendant. As the defendant did not file the written statement, he was set ex pafie in the suit and an ex-parte decreed was passed on 28.03.2023. Later, defendant hied an application uide I.A.No.570 of 2023 to set aside the ex-parte Judgment dated 28.03.2O23, and as there u,as a delay of 45 days 1n filing the said set aside petition, he filed I.A.No.569 of 2023 to condone the said delav and both the applications were dismissed by the trial Court by a Common Order ) dated 12. 12.2023, holding that even though suflicient opportunity was given to the defendant for filing written statement, he could not file the same and he simply thrown the blame on his Counsel. It is further observed that he ought to have verified the same through e-Courts about the stage of the case instead of thiowing blame on his Counsel. Aggrieved by the said Common Order, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and Civil Revision petition are preferred.

4. Learned Counsel for the appellant/petitioner/defendant contended that the defendant is not aware of the Court proceedings. Though he attended the Court on several adjournments, as the Counsel has not instructed him properly, he could not pursue it with due cliligence. It is stated that dra-ft written statement was signed bv him in February, 2021 itself and he don't know why it was not filed by the Counsel in the Court. petitioner is aged about 57 years and doing business, but has not ensured from the Counsel regarding hling of u.ritten statement and Court proceedings though he u,as attending the Court on all adjournments. However, litigant should not suffer for the mistake of the Counsel.

5. The guidelines for condoning delay as per Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunolthpur Nafar Acadanng and others,t are as follouLs: '20tl (qrs( H ;s: "i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oiented, non- pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courls are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remoue injustice. ii) The tenns "sufficient cause" should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms ore basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspectiue to the obtaining fact- situation. iii) Substantial justice being paramount and ptuotol the technical considerations should not be giuen undue ctnd uncalled for emphasis. iu) No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delag but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of. u) Lack of bona fides imputable to a partA seeking condonation of delag is o significant and releuant fact. ui) It is to be kept in mind that adherence to strict proof should not affect public justice and cause public mischief because the courts are required to be uigilant so that in the ultimate euentuate there is no real failure of justice. uii) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsule the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play. uiii) There is a distinction between inordinate delag and a delay of shorl duration or feto dags, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attrocted u.thereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the fi"rst one utarrctnts stict approctch uthereas the second calls for a liberal delineation. ix) The conduct, behauiour and attitude of a partg relating to its inaction or negligence are releuant factors to be taken tnto consideration. If is so as the fundamental pinciple is that the courts are required to u-teigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the sald principle cannot be giuen a total go by in the name of liberal approach. x) If tLLe explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged in tLrc application are fancifu| the courts should be uigilant not to expose the other side unnecessaily to face such a litigation. xi) It is to be bome in mind that no one gets awag ulith fraud., misrepresentation or interpolation by taking recourse to the technical[ties of latu of limitation. \\ \\ 4 - x'ii) The entire gamut of facts are to be carefung scrutinized. and the approach should be. based on the i)riarg^ of judiciat dts3retion uLhich is founded on objectiue nrz"rning and not on indiuidua I perception. xiii) The State or a public bodg or an entitg representing a collectiue cause should be giuen .o^" o"".ptorte latitude. 16. To the aforesaid principles *. id.O .o^" *or" ^oy guidelines taking note of the present d"a ";";;. They are: _ a) An application .for condo.nation oy ielag "f*ura be d.rafted tuith careful concem and not i" " nli'ir.ard. manner harbouinq the notion that the courts are ,"*ii"O to condone delag on the bedrock of the principte tLd ";;;*otion of a li.s on meits is seminal to justice dispensation "gi*^. b) An apptication for cond.onation of detay Jnord not be dealt tttith in a routine manner on the base oy inaiutauat philosophg which is basicallg subjectiue. c) Though no precise formula can be laid down regard being had to the concept of jud.icial d_iscretion, g"t o effort for achieu_ing consistencg and collegialii .f ,i adjud.icatory sgstem should be made as that is the uliimate institutional motto. d) The increasing tendencg to perceiue d erag as a non_ serious matter and, hence, lackadaisical propensitg can be exhibited in o non-challanl manner rL ?qures to be curbed' of course' u'tithin legal parameters." "on""ious

6. The case status of O.S.No.7B3 of 2O2O is filed before the Court. As per the case status, written statement was not filed by the defendant for 9 months and the fee payments made by the defendant to his counsel during that period are arso liled before this Court. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant/ petitioner/defendant is that counser for the defendant before the trial Court did not pursue the litigation, as such defendant was set ex-parte. I 7 . As the suit is filed for recovery of amount and that the trial Court partly decreed the suit directing the defendant to pay Rs.56,42,5OO/- with interest, he should be given an opportunity to contest the suit. The delay in frling the set aside petition is only 45 dayS and it can be condoned. Therefore, this Court hnds that it is just and reasonable to set aside the Common Order of the trial Court dated 12.12.2023, but on payment of costs of Rs.5,0O0/- to be paid by the appellant/ petitioner/defendant to the Telangana State Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad, within one week from today. The trial Court is directed to give reasonable opportunity to both sides and dispose of the suit on merits, by duly considering the evidence of both sides. The petitioner is also directed to file an appropriate petition before the triai Court for filing written statement without delay and the trial Court sha,ll consider the same without delay.

8. Accordingly, C.M.A.No.170 of 2024 and C.R.P.No.984 of 2024 are allowed. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. \ To, //TRUE COPY// Sd/. K. SRINIVASA RAO REGISTRAR JO ON OFFICER 1 The lll Additional District and sessions Judge-cum-ll Additional MetropolitanSessionsJudge,Medchal-MalkajgiriDistrict,atKukatpally.

2. One CC to Sri Sardar Jasbeer Singh, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri N. Krishna Sumanth' Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies w^,r,/gh HIGH COURT DATED:2310112025 I I g sTATa ''z ..: I \ f, 1 L t:: t 'z o j DES A.IP COMMON JUDGMENT CMA.No.170 of 2024 AND CRP.No.984 of 2024 ALLOWING THE CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL AND CIVIL REVISION PETITION D !D