Ll exigency. It is vs NNR,T

Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri M. Pranav Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: Sri S. Manjari Gant rep. Sri Sunil B Ganu Counsel for the Respondent No. 4: Sri Avinash Desai The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA CIVIL REVISION PET tTtoN No.3213 0F 2018 Date of Order : 04.12-2025 BETWEEN: Ms.Lalitha Reddy (Died) & 7 Others Petitioners AND Ms.R.Indira&3Others ORDER: Respondents This Civil Revision Petition is hled by the petitioners-claim petitioners aggrieved by the order passed in IA No.5540 of 2016 in ASSR No.20551 of 2O16 on the file of Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. Heard Sri M.Pranav,learned counsel appearing on beha'lf of petitioners and Sri S.Maniari Gcnu, learned counsel representing Sri B.SuniI Gcnu, learned counsel for the respondents/ plaintiffs'

3. l,earned counsel for the petitioners herein are claim petitioners who earlier filed IA No.554O of 2O16 in ASSR No'2O551 of 2016 under Order 41 Rule A read u'ith Section 151 of CPC read with 5 of Limitation Act seeking to condone the deia5r of 49 days in preferring the appeal against the dismissal order, dated )1 \-r 2

06.06.2016 passed in EA No.363 of 2OO9. Ttr perusal of the records has dismissed the condor r on the ground that the reasons stated by the c i the abnormal delay of more than one and hal1. satisfactory nor convincing and dismissed the Ll on 03. 1l.2O1T . Aggrieved b5z the same, the petition is fi1ed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners/: submits that delay q.hich is caused was on acc reason and that petitioner No.B was suffering f- body pain since 05.07.2O16 to 05.09.2016 and rh bed rest for four u,eeks and the delay of 49 <I appeal was not deliberate but only due to medir: contended that the trial Court ought to har approach, as the condonation delay petition is f and b_y rlismissing the said condone delay petitio I has lost the rightful claim over the suit scherhr prayed this Court to allow the revision petition. AAR,J CRP No.32l3 oI2()IB trial Court after delay application im petitioners for nonths is nether No.5540 of 2076 present revision aim petitioners runt of bonafide rm jaunclice and doctors advised ws in hlir-rg the Ll exigency. It is : taken liberal )r onl,!. 49 davs the petitioners e propertl,. ancl

5. Learned counsel for the respondents st I mits that the respondents have taken over the suit schedule Ftlpertv through process of Court and respondents are in possess on of the suit J NNR,T CRP No.32lJ of2018 schedule property and there is nothing further to adjudicate in this matter and the trial Court after perusing the entire records including condone delay petition and the averments made by the learned counsel on either side has rightly dismissed the application which needs no interference. Now the point for consideration before this Court is: i) "Wlether the trial Court ho,s rightlg rejected the condone delog ill Whether tlrc petitioners haue mode out onA substantial cause for application. condemning the delay of 49 days_" Point No.l & 2:

6. Admittedly, petitioners are not in possession of the suit schedule property and the respondents herein have taken over the possession of the suit schedule propert), through process of Court in terms of the order passed by the trial Court in EA No.369 of 20O9, dated O6.O6.2OL6. The petitioners preferred the appeal before the appellant Court with condonation delay of 63 days, hor.r,ever in the order reads it as 49 days ir-r preferring the appeal and the same was dismissed on 03. I l.2Ol7.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners avcrred that trial Court ought to have taken a liberal approach in condoning the delav, as the delay is only for 49 days and the claim petitioners are oflering genuine reason with medical certilicate of Doctor stating that the \ ) \ 4 NNR,J CRP No.32l3 of 20lE petitioner No.B was suffering from jaundice sinr: O5.07.2O16 to

05.09.2016 ald the doctor had advised bed res[ for four weeks. However, the trial Court ignoring the said medicr certificate filed by the claim petitioners has dismissed the ap 1 lication on the ground that it is neither satisfactory nor convinc r ;. B. Learned counsel lor the petitioners has elied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umrr er u, Pottengal Subidr: and othersr and submits that Honbkr Supreme Court have stated that High Court should have take r liberal vierv in condoning the delay r'".hen the appellant has r hown sufficient cause.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners have vt:.Lemently argued and contended that the delay caused was min mum and their valuable rights ovcr the suit scheduled propertl' are going to be affected, if the delay is not condone, the pt't itioners will be subjected to great loss.

10. Per contra. learned counsel for the respoll lents contended that the reasons for delay are totally vague anc also there is no proper explanation for the said delay and LIso nothing is r.vhispered about the other petitioners, and it is r: < t the case of the '(zorg) rs scc r:r 5 NNR.J CRP L'o.J2l3 oI2018 petitioners that the petitioner No.B is only looking after the matter on behalf of the other petitioners. As there been no such pleading, the delay caused cannot be accepted and further argued and contended that there are no merits. Even if the delay is condoned no purpose would be served as the respondents herein has taken over the suit schedule property. I 1. The settled principles of law is that, an application in Section 5 of the Limitation Act has to be generally viewed in a iiberal and lenient way to do the substantial justice to both the parties, and so as to advance substantial justice. In Shioamma (Dead) bg Lrs. V. Krrrnataka Housing Board. and othersz, the Hon'ble Supreme Court at Paragraph Nos.138, 139, 140 and 141 s.hich is reproduced herein under for better understanding: " 138. When a Court of Lou-' deaLs uith an appticotiort to condone the delog filed under Section 5 of the Limitotton Act, such opplication utill haue to be generaLlg uieued irt o liberat and lenient uaA to do substantial justice bettueen the pcLrties. Section 5 of the Limitation Act must be liberaLLy construed and appLied so as fo aduance substantial justice. It is urtdoubte<lly lrue that o justice oriented approach is necessarg tuhile deciding opplication under Sectton 5 of Limitotion. HouLeuer, it cannot be said that in euery case delay must necessailg be condoned. It is a condition precedenl for Section 5 of Lhe Limitation Act thot there must be a suflictent reason for condoning the delag.

139. Howeuer, rahile substantiol justice mus| be aduonced, the Law of limitotion is equollg binding, and " suffcient couse" rnust be shown in substance, not tn emptg fonn. 'l'hts ensure-s t l02i st.c onlinc SC t969.\ 6 Nn"R,J CRP No..t 213 of 20t8 thctt the balonce betueen justice and. certainlA I not skeu)ed, in fauour of unmeited titigants. 14O. Houteuer, al tfLe same time, the coutirs mt: t be minciful that strong case on ments ls no ground. for cc td,onation of delag. W\rcn an appltcation for conionattoi of ae,ag is placed. before..the courl, the inquiry is confined to u_tlh<:tL zr",,suJftcient couse" hcts been demonstrated for not fiting ,i .e appeal or proceeding Luithin the prescibed penod oj L:t ,,itation. ,fhe menls of the underlging cose are uhoLlg extrct eous to this inquirg. If courts Luere to look into the mZits oJ he matter at this staqe, it utould blur the boundaries betutitt preliminarg procedural questions and substantiue ad.jud_icLt ion, therebly c1nlating uuo distinct stages of judiciol scrutin g. The purpose oJ bectbn .> oJ the Limitolion Act is not to det<:t r ,.ine ulether the claim .is Legalht or lactttallg strong, but onlil tuhether the appLicant hari a reasonabte justiJicatioi for the dz. ay. 141. Test ol' "sufficient cause" cannot be su.bst tuted. bg an examination of Lhe meits of the case. Condonattlt of d_elig is a matter ol tliscretion based on explanation for r:. e delag, not on the pro:;pe-cts orf success in the caie. \ merits ore considered, a litigant utith a stronge, ,o.. ,,.rri1 be fauoured. u.tith condonation despite negligence, ulhile a ,.teoker case may be re.jected euen if suffcient cause iis rnt ie ou.t. This u.tou.Ld k:ad to an nequitable anrl inconsbtent r oplication of |he Lau,t, undennininq the uni"form stond.ard. that. I i doctine if Limitatiot't is tle:signerT to ma.intain.

72. Apptying rhc said principles to the present set of facts, it appears that trial Court n ithout appreciatin I the medical certificate filed bv the claim petitioners or opinirr I anything r{.ith regard to the medicai certificate, hetd in one line , pinion that the claim petitioners r>ught to have filed the appeal wirl in time and the trial Court has not assigned any cogent reasons e):, ept stating that the reasons stared by the claim petitioners is nel ter satisfacton, nor convincing. l NNR,J CRP No.l2l3 oI20lt i3. Considering the fact that the petitioner No-g who has specilically stated that he has deposed the afhdavit on behalf ol all petitioners and he is the only one who is looking after the appeal on behalf of other petitioners and have suffered from jaundice. ) ) Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the trial Court oughr to have taken the [iberal approach while dealing the condonation delay as pcr the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in \ I Shiuamma (Dead) bg Lrs. V. Katnataka Housing Board and others (cited aboue) and also the fact that respondcnts lravc alreacl_1, obtaincd the position of the suit schedule property tlrrough proccss of Court and no prejudice would be caused to the rcsponden(s and the same can be remedied by u,ay of irnltosing cost on thc ltetitioners.

14. With the above observation, Civil Revision petition is allowed :rrrd the orrlcr passed in IA No.SS4O of 2016 in ASSR No.2055 I ot 20 16 or-r thc lrle of Chief Judge, City Civit Court is set .rsidr:, subject to condition that the petitioners shalt pay costs ol Its.2O,OO0/- to the rcspondents herein and on such pro<iuction of reccipt of pavmcnt, thc trial Court shall take on record tlrc apltcal and proccccl to dispose the same by following d.ue proccdure.rs [)er Iart,. \ \ 8 NN&T CRP No.l2l I of20fi Miscellanr:ous petitions pending, if any, shz j stand closed. Sd/. A. JAYASREE ASSI: TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTI OFFICER To, I

1. The Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. 2. One CC to Sri Avinash Desai Advocate [OPUCI 3. One CC to Sri Sunil B Ganu Advocate [OpUCl 4. One CC to Sri lr,l pranav, Advocate [OpUCi 5. Two CD Copie:; VTYPR lr4 I HIGH COURT DATED: 0411212025 ORDER CRP.No.3213 of 2018 ALLOWING THE CRP @ 3\ \3. { HES ( j 0 I ![8 202[ t *