The High Court · 2025

...Petitioners/Respondents/Plaintiffs AND 1 2 Vijaya Vidyala High School, Tandur, Vikarabad District rep by its Secretary S.Sai Reddy, S/o. Yella Reddy, aged about 85 years, Occ. Present Member of Vijaya Vidyalaya School Committee, R/o. Municipal Quarters, l.B. Road, Tandur,Vikarabad District

3. Satyanarayana Boob, S/o. Ram Prasad, aged about 80 years, Occ. Present Secretary of Vijaya Vidyalaya School Committee, R/o. [Vlarwadi Bazar, Tandur,Vikarabad District

4. Nagaram Narsimulu, S/o. Bichappa, aged about 75 years, Occ. Present It/lember of Vijaya Vidyalaya School Committee, R/ o, Tandur, Vikarabad District.

5. P.Janaradhan Reddy, S/o. Chandra Reddy, aged about 62 years, Occ. Present Treasurer of Vijaya Vidyalaya School Committee, R/o. Tandur,Vikarabad District

6. Setty Bhasker , {1,/o. Late Shanth Kumar, aged about 48 years, ()cc. Present [/lember o'Vi.ia1'a Vidyalaya School Committee, R/o. Tandur. y'il arabad District

7. R.Baswaraj, S;ic. Chandrappa, aged about 70 years, Occ. Prese:nt Member of Vijaya Vidvalayzr School Committee, R/o. Tandur,Vikarabad [)isirict. ...R espondents/Petitioners/Defendant Nos.1,2,6,1(:l to 12 and 14 lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition ur,de' ,(ierction 151 CPC praying that in the crrcuns ta rces stated in the affidavit filed in r;upport of the petition, the High Court may be p eased to stay all further proceedrrrg:; in O.S No.37 of 2016 on the file of the rrircipal District Judge, Vikarabad Distri:t pending disposal of the above Revision. Counsel for the Fetitioners :SRl SRINIVAS VELAGAPUDI Counsel for the Res;p,rndents :SRl K RAGHUVEER REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY CWIL REVISION PETITION No.1149 OF 2o25 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 ol the Constitution of India, is frled by the petitioners herein/ plaintiffs, challenging the order, dated 07 .O2.2O25 passed in I'A'No'614 of 2024 ln O.S.No.37 of 2016 by the learned Principal District Judge, Vikarabad, whereby, I.A.No.614 of 2024 filed by the respondents herein/ defendant Nos.l, 2,6, lO to 12 and 14 under Section 5 of Limitation Act, seeking to condone the delay of 18 1 days in filing the petition under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the judgment and decree dated 19.72.2O23, was allowed. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners/ plaintiffs 2. initially hled the suit vide O.S.No.745 of 2015 on the Iile of II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L B Nagar, seeking declaration of title, injunction, and other reliefs against the respondents herein/defendant Nos.l, 2, 6, lO to 12 and 14 and other defendants. The respondents filed their written statements, and subsequently, the suit was transferred to the Court of the Principal District Judge, Vikarabad (hereinafter referred to as the "trial Court") and renumbered as O.S.No.37 of 2016. The suit was decreed on 19.12.2023 in favour of the petitioners. Alleging that no :] I 2 notice was se r\ c d with respect to the transfer and hr:a rir rg of the suit, and clairnirrg that they came to know about the dr:cre: only on

15.07.2O2'+, .h: respondents filed I.A.No.614 of 2024 st eking to condone the 1t'1 ,r1 of 18 1 days in hling the set aside p :tir-ion' The trial Court, trirle order dated 07 -02.2025, allou'ed lhe said application sulr-'ect to payment of costs of Rs.10,0C0/ - to the petitioners. ,'\ggricved by the same, the petitioners f 1ed this revlslon

3. Thc lee rr rr'd cournsel for the petitioners contend':d that- the trial Court. ,.:r't cd in allowing I.A.No.614 of 2024 litecl by the respondents. 1t is submitted that the issues in the suit \/el e framed in the prcsenc,: of the learned counsel for the respondents, who were a\ rare ol the transfer of the suit and pendenc'/ of the proceedinqs rt:f rre the trial Court. Despite such knowl,:dge, the responden t s la lcd to appear, and the suit was decidr:c o n merits. Thereforc, th: Cclay of 181 days in hling the petitior 'o set aside the decrec la,:ks sufficient explanation and ought not trl trave been condoned.

4. On the otrer hand, the iearned counsel for the rescondents submitted tha": the respondents were not served with a"ly notice regarding thr t rrrnsfer of the suit or the date of hearinp;, a.nd came ( I 3 to know about the decree only ot 15.07.2024. It is further submitted that immediately, the respondents hled the subject I'A under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay' It is contended that the trial Court rightly condoned the delay after considering the facts and applying settled legal principles'

5. A perusal of the impugned order dated 07.O2'2O25 passed in I.A.No.614 of 2024 in O.S.No.37 of 2076 would show that the trial Court, after examining the mateiial on record and placing reliance on various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, allowed the application for condonation of delay subject to payment of costs of Rs. 10,OOO/ - by the respondents to the petitioners' It is well settled that while dealing with applications for condonation of delay, the Courts must adopt a liberal, justice-oriented, and pragmalic approach, rather than a technical or pedantic one' In the present case, the delay of 181 days cannot be termed as inordinate, and the explanation given by the respondents constitutes sufhcient cause. This Court hnds no illegality or irregularity in the exercise of discretion bY the trial Court. It is relevant to state that the scope of interference under

6. Article 227 of the Constitution of India is limited' The High Court can exercise supervlsory jurisdiction only in cases where there is 4 patent illegal t\,, perversity, or gross violation of the prirciples of natural justrce -n the present case, there is no such p:n.ersity or jurisdictional €rror in the order passed by the tria. Ccurt. The impugned orrir- r is reasoned and does not suffer front z,ny legal infirmities rva rranting interference by this Court under Ar Licl,e 227 of the ConstitLlri,rn of India. This Civil Revision petition s ,:levoid of merits and is lir,lrlc to be dismissed.

7. Acco rd i -rg 1.,,,, this Civil Revision Petition is disrnisrsed. No cos ts. Misc:llarnt:or"Ls Petitions, if any, pending in this Ctivil Revision Petition shall r;La-rd closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- MOHD. ISMAIL DEPLTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The principal f istrict Judge, Vikarabad District 2. one cC to SRt .sRtNtvAS"vEt4CAFU-DIil;;cate [opuc] 3. One CC to SRt t<: RAGHUVEER neOOi, nl"t.rte [OpUC] 4. Two CD Copies ADK/gh w HIGH COURT DATED:30104.12025 ORDER CRP.No.1149 of 2025 ${ E I e q o c) )/ 12 t\ m5 9 7. tr) ) \- + (\ ( t2 1 DISMISSING THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS G *asu[ (y, . 69','