The High Court · 2025

Sri Mekala Chkarapani,, S/o Sriramulu, / Aged about 67yrs, Occ. Landlord, Akbarbagh, Malakpet, Hyderabad. ...RespondenU RespondenUplaintiff lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 pleased to Stay all further proceedings including execution in O.S. No.5499 of 2022 on the file of XIX Junior Civil Judge, CCC, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the C.R.p. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. MOHAMMAD ADNAN, Advocate Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. P SURESH KUMAR, Advocate The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.894 of 2025 ORDER: This Civil Revision petition is filed assailing the order dated

10.02.2025 in I.A.No.696 of 2024 in O.S.No,5499 of 2022, passed by the XIX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. By the impugned order, the trial Court dismissed the application filed by the revision petitioner under Section 5 of Limitation Act seeking to condone the delay of41 days in filing application to set aside the cx pqrte judgment and decree dated 0l .07.1,.024 in OS.No.5499 of 2022.

2. Ileard Sri Mohd. Adnan, leamed counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.Suresh Kumar, leamed counsel for respondent. perlsed the material a va ilahle on record. 3. The revision petitioner is defendant and respondent herein is plaintiff in the suit betble the trial Court. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner subrnitted that the trial Court, vide impugned order, disrnissed the application withotrt properly appreciating the reasons assigned by the petitioner for condonation ) LN/,J C.R P i'o.891 of )0)j of delay; that sinee the delaf is very meagre i.e.' only 41 days, the trial Court erred in not taking a liberal view and condoning the sarne ancl as such, the impugned order is u;rsustainable and the same requires to be interfered with by tl.ris Court'

4.1. Leatned counsel for petitioner in suppcrrt of his contention that while considering the application for condonation of delay' the Court has to adopt a liberal view, relied upon the judgrncnts of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (Jmmer Vs' Pottengal Subitla and otherst and Robin T'hapa Vs' Rohil Dora2 '

5. Per contra, leamed counsel for respondent submitted that earlier, the revision petitioner was set ex pafte on 07 '06'2023 ' however, on an application vide IA'No'346 of 2023 filed by him under Order IX Rule 7 CPC' the ex parte order was set aside subject to filing of written statetnent by the revision petitioner by

06.10.2023.He further submitted that as the revision petitioner did not comply with the said conditional order' hc was again set ex parte on 06.11.2023 and ultimately, the suit was decreed ex parte onO IIT.2024andallthesefactsshowthatpetitionerwasnot 'zott1:; elo:o 1sc; ' (zo rg) z scc:s9 J LNl,J C.R P No.89t of2025 diligent in pursuing the matter. He further submitted that the reasons oflered by the petitioner for condonation of delay in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree are not plausible and the petitioner is only trying to drag on the proceedings. He further submitted that trial court, on due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, has rightly dismissed the application vide impugned order and in the present Revision no grounds are rnade out to interfere with the same and as such, the Revision is liable to be dismissed.

6. Apropos the submissions made by leamed counsel for both the parties, this Court has scrupulously gone through the affidavit filcd by rhe revision petitioner and also the counter filed by the respondent before the trial Court. In the affidavit, the petitioner has thrown the blame on the earlier counsej engaged by him in not filing the written statement, though his signatures were taken on the same, within the time granted by the trial Court. Except the self assertion of the petittioner that his earlier counsel has suffered stroke and was bed ridden and as such, he was not informed about I 4 LNA,J C R P No E94 oI2025 the status of the case, he did not choose to hle any medical record to prove the said fact.

7. Perusal of the record discloses that the revision petitioner was aware of the conditional order passed by the trial Court to file written statement by 06.11.2023, however, he did not choose to verifl, or know as to the order passed by the trial Court on

06.11.2023 and pursue the matter by knowing the status of the case. The case of the revision petitioner that as his earlier counsel suffered heart stroke and was bed ridden, as such, he was not informed about the status of the suit cannot be believed as no medical record was filed along with the application-IA.No.696 of 2024 to substantiate the same. Thus, it is evident that petitioner was not diligent in pursuing the matter. Therefore, in the absence of any plausible reasons assigned by the petitioner for laches/default on his part, he is not entitled to indulgence of this Court.

8. The judgments relied upon by leamed counsel for petitioner has no application to the present case since the facts and circumstances of the said cases are completely different to that of 5 LNA.J CRPNoSgtof)D5 tl-re present case and as such, it does not come to the aid of the revision petitioner.

9. In view of the foregoing reasons, this Court is of considered opinion thar trial Court has rightly dismissed the application vide impugned order and the revision petitioner failed to point out any illegality or irregularity the impugned order warranttng interlerence hy th is Court.

10. 1t Accordingly, this Revision is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed SD/. A.V.S.PRASAD DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The XIX Junior Civil Judge, C C.C. Hyderabad 2. One CC to MT MOHAIyIMAD ADNAN Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Mr P SURESH KUMAR Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CD Copies L HIGH COURT DATED: 3110712025 ORDER CRP.No.894 of 2025 l'- I .l 1 2 uA E 2U6 o E FAs o(-cT ( \ . C) -t' Accordingly, this Revision is Dismissed. No costs