The High Court · 2025

).,J9'J;d3,?;"e"i"+iDEFENDANTs lA NO: 2 oF 2021 Between:- 'l . Sved Kareemuddin' (died) per L Ri Kareemuddtn, Aged 36 years, occ. Manager ,:-*l*'LT;il'x,,'{"-'{:}iJ*ii*,i*,:::#;i:;t1T:,,"occHanz ' iif: #'?51"i'e:,1.ff : tJ g;$i*#tt,11gflA ,.,,., o * Ens neer a bved Ameenuddin, S/o Late " ifi""ili;i;, il;'n r'ro rz-+-sso'Yakutpura Hvderabad Sye.l (.wi stddin, S/o. Late Syed Kareemuddin, Aged 2Z y,.3r<, Occ. Doctor, Ryo. H Nr, '7-4-530. Yakutpurj, Hyderabad. Sye( :ih;rL,ddin, Sio. Late Sved .Kareemuddin, Aged 26 ye,trs (rcc. Student, Rl/o H \, '7-4-530, yakutpuia, Hyderabad. syec I at I r r Begum, D/o. Late Syed Kareemuddin, Ager 26 years, Occ. Studrn(,:1,) H. No. 1Z-4-530, yakut[ura, Hyderabad. Smt. llo:. Unnisa, W/o. Late Syed Kaieemuddin, /\ged 66 years, Occ. Hou..e' :'rr ryo. H. No .r7-4-s30, yakutp!ft.1;:$,"rfr1,;,". ,," .,r,",nfio.. 6 7

8. AND 1 Smt. J y'::antha, W/o.J.Kanakaiah, Aged 43 years, Occ. Householj, RIo.H.No 1-8-67t Sl :rkarmatt, Na akunta, Hyderabad. .F -.1i1:,

2. Samir -abtr:rkar Reddy, S/o. Narasimha Reddy, Aged. 52 years, Oct. Business, Ri/o. H Nr 1-.182, Sahebnagar Vi age, Hry'"tfrn"agar.- f,,l'"ni at, Rrrnga Reddy Distrirt 3. Sam. A'ti:r r W/o. Sama prabhakar Reddy, Age. 52 years, Occ BLSiness, R/o. . l] Iu: 4. K. Vijry:,\l/). K. Krishna Red-y, Agbd. +a-years, Ocl. frouirnoO, Rl/o. H. No. - _ 1.1-13.-1:6iEl , N4argadarshi Colony, 5. K. PaCnra ! /. o. K. Bhaskar Reddy, Ag;d. 52 years, Occ. l-1ous()ho d Ft/o. H. No. -- --- ...RespondenuRes ponc enUt) efendants. Sahebnagar Vitrase, Hayarh#gri rM"ndli irnga Red(tyDistrict. -HyderaOaO. ' --- 18-199, ,\sr )( Nagar. N4iryatagudi, NitgonOa'Distritt. Petitlon Lrr j ]- Section .lSl CpC praying that in the circuntstances s.ated in the affidavit filec ir sul,F)ort of the petition, the High Court may be pteas{)d To vacate the interim orders rrra'r €,d on O2lO7/2021 in CRp No.953 of 2021 in .A N r 01 cf 2021 lA NO: 1 oF 2021 Petiticn _nrk r Section iS.l CpC praying that in the circunstan,)es sjated in the affidavit filed in lu 3 I f,rt of the petition, the High Court may be please( to g, ant stay of all further r'ro(ie,rlngs pursuant to the exparte Decree and JJdgrrent dated 25/0312019 in () S )362 of 2013on thefileof Honorable I Add itionz I D isl.ict Judge, Ranga Redd7 r tsif (t at LB Nagar, pending final disposal of ^e m;iin cj ,il revision petition. COunseI for the PI}l itioner :SRI. VENKATA RANGADAS KANURI Counsel for the Rr],;t)ondents: A KESHAVA REDDY The Court made thr, following: ORDER 't THE HONOURABLE DT. JUSTICE G.RADIIA RANI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.9 53 of 2021 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is frled by the petitioner - defendant No'4 aggrieved by the order dated 30'04'2021 passed in I'A'No'490 of 2019 in O.S.No.362 of 2013 by the leamed I Additional District Judge' Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar'

2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondents - plaintiffs fited a suit for cancellation of registered sale deed document No'4161 of 2001 dated 08.06.2001 and to declare the registered sale deed document No'7785 of 2005 dated 13.07.2005 as nurl and void in respect ofthe rand in SurveyNo.586 to an extent of Ac.3-21 guntas situated at Nadergul Revenue Village' Saroomagar Mandal, RangareddY District' 3. The case of the plaintiff was that he intended to sell the suit schedule property to meet his urgent financial necessities' The defendant No'l offered and agreed to purchase the same for a total sale consideration of Rs10'05'000/- and they entered into.a Memorandum of Understanding on 08'06'2001' The defendant No'l paid Rs'7'00'000/- and issued a post dated cheque for Rs.3,05,000/-. On the same day' the defendant No'1 got executed a registered 2 Dr.GRR, J crp_953 2021 saledeedinf;rvrrrr,l'defendantNo.2(wifeofdefendantNo. 1). rnviewofasuit filed by one r>f h s fam,y members vde o.S.No.7g3 ,rf 2001 in the court of Principal Junior' (r'ir Judge, Rangareddy District at I-.B.\agrLr for perpetual injunction in rr:sc:ct of the suit schedule property, trie r,efendant No.1 demanded the pi ri r.ilFfor refund ofthe sale consideration. )ue tohis coercion, the plaintiff rr:p:ri<r l{s.5,00,000/- to the defendant No.l orr 21 02.2007. The defendant No.l ':xt cuted a receipt, but however in the receipt mentioned the same as hand lcan lte defendant No.r executed an undertaking on 05.02.2010 that on receipt ol thr: balance amount of Rs.2,00,000/_, h,: wr,uld :xecute a deed of cancellation ol- resistered sare deed. The plaintiff tendert:d Rs.2,00,000/- to defendants I arrd 2 and asked them to execute the r,:grstored deed of cancellation, b rt th':'l denied the same. The praintifr furthe' averred that defendant No' l got :xecuted a registered sale deed dat.d ,.07 2005 through defendant No.2 ir lrr,,or of defendants 3 to 5, as such, fiI,:d tlre sr,it seeking the above reliefs. 4 The defendlnts I to 5 remained ex_pafie. 5 An ex-pa;te de cree was passed on 25.03-2}lg cancell ng r he registered sale deed date(l l)E.)6.2001 and declaring the registered sale deed dated 13.07 .2005 as nrrll anrl void Permanent injunction was also grantr.,d restraining the defendants rr.r- rrienating the suit schedule prop€)rty to rhird parties 3 DT.GRR'J crp-953 2021 Subsequently, the defendant No'4 filed a petition under Order IX Rule 13 read withSectionl5lofCPCtosetasidetheex.partedecreepassedino.S.No.362 of 2013 on 19.07.2019' As there was a delay of 85 days in filing the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree' the defendant No'4 filed I'A'No'490 of 2019 under Section 5 olthe Limitation Act' 1963 to condone the said delay' In the affidavit hled along with the application' the defendant No'4 6. contended that the det-endants I md Zhad executed a registered sale deed dated 13.07.2005 and delivered the physical possession of the suit schedule property to her and she was in possession and enjoyment of the same since then' She had converted the said property from agriculture to non-agriculture use and obtained a lay out from the Gram Panchayat by laying the roads' etc'' and alienated the plots in favor of various purchasers and some of the plot owners had also constructed compound wall to protect the same from encroachers' Having knowledgeofthesame,theplaintiffwithamalafrdeintention'filedtheabove suit for cancellation of the registered sale deeds only with a view to extract money in view of hike in prices in and over the suit schedule property' As on the date df filing of the suit' the entire suit schedule properlry was alienated by laying plots through registered sale deeds and the purchasers were in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same' She further stated that due to ill-health' she could not contact her counsel to file a petition to set aside the ex-parte \ .> 4 decree and il',hr: petition was not allowed, she worrld irreparable loss lrt 1n.jury. Dr.GR& crp_953 2027 )e rut to great and 7 ' The res :c'nd' :,ts - plaintiffs filed counter submitt ng t hat r he sole plaintiff died on 21'0') ''.',1( and his legal representatives w:re brot ght on record. Summons we.e s'|l ved on the defendants 3 and 4 in the sui: way back on 26.07.2013 and al;o in I.A.No.l24 of 2017 in the LR apl,lication. The petitioner - delendant No.4 engaged a lawyer and fired raka at. t ut she failed to file her writter sr.arr'nent or counters in I.A.s. None ap,ear,:d b,:fore the court on her behalf. lrjo diligence was shown by the petitic,ner in l.rosecuting the case. Nearly aftt:r s x years, she filed the petition to set rsid: tht judgment and decree dated 25 ):.2019. As the judgment was passe.d or mlrits, the only remedy available fi, the petitioner was to file an appeal. I-rre triar court has given ample oJrp':rrrrrrity to the petitioner - defendant |,ro.4. br-r she failed to properly explai, 'he .eray and as to what prevented her lron filirrg application in time and pra).e(, rr rlismiss the petition. 8' considerinrr r1 r: contentions of both the leamed corrnser apl.,earing before it, the trial court pr,Lsr;t rl an order dismissing the application. t'l 9 Aggrievecl try the dismissal of the same, the petitioner - de fendant No.4 preferred this rer.is ior: 5 DT.GRR' J crp-953 2021

10. Heard Sri Jelli Kanakaiah' learned counsel representing Sri Venkata Rangadas Kanuri, learned counsel for the petitioner - defendant No'4 on record and Sri G.M.Mohiuddin, leamed counsel representing Sri A'Keshava Reddy' leamed counsel for the respondents 2 to 8 - plaintiffs on record' 11. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was a delay of only 85 days in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte decree dated 25.03.2019. The petitioner in her affrdavit had stated that third party rights were crept in. as she alienated the plots to various purchasers and constructions were also made therein' The ptaintiff filed the suit for cancellation of the registered sale deed document No'4161 of 2001 dated 08'06'2001 and to declare that the registered sale deed document No'7785 of 2005 dated 13'07'2005 as nulr and void in the year 2013. Admittedly, the suit for cancellation of registered document could be fited only within three years' but filed after the period of limitation' The trial court without considering all these aspects passed the ex-parte judgment and decree as well as dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for condoning the delay' The petitioner suffered gynecology problem. If an opportunity was given to her to defend her case by frling written statement, no prejudice would be caused to, the respondents - plaintiffs and I 6 Dr.GRR, crp_953_2 02I relied upon rh.. j1dgps111 of the Hon,ble Apex Courr in Ind,;:r Singh v. The State of Matthrra pradeshl. 12' Leamed r:or rLser for the respondents on the other harrd cr,ntended that the revision petitiorer - defendant No.4 had not shown an1 sulricient cause or reason for nor f ilin s the written statement. she had nor particip ated in the trial. Only after pas,sr,E, :f.iudgment and decree in O.S.No.3ri2 ol20 t3, she came up with the prese nl, pr tition marafidery to set aside the ex-pa.e dt,cree. The said petitions wer€ r'o . r naintainable. court notices were d,r.,, se ved on all the defendants T'hr' p'ritioner - defendant No.4 arso engaged a Ii uyer and filed vakalat' but fail"'d . fire her written statement or courlters i, .he I.A.s. The lower court ha.d g '11n ample opportunity to the petiti.ner .- d:t-endant No.4. The petitioner ral r:ot properly explained the deray and not ired any document in support of her irl r':ss. only to drag the litigation, she fired tre apprication. The triar court on c' r sidering alr the aspects, dismissed the p.titic n filed by her. There was no '|rr'j-o. in the order of the trial court to sr:t ar;idc the same and prayed to dismir;s ,he levision petition.

13. Perused the rerc,rd.

14. As seen lr,.,m t.he record, summons were served on the petitioner _ defendant No'4 'rn'r a 'rakaiat was fiid on her behalf wa1 ba< k ort 26.07.2013. 'Special Leavc petil io , I - ivil) No.6145 of 2024, daled,2t .03.2025 7 Dr.GRR, J crp-953 2021 Ample opportunity was given to her to hle her written statement' but she failed to file the same, as such she was set ex-parte on1g'O4'2014 and the matter was proceeded further. No reason was given by the petitioner in her affidavit as to why she kept quiet without filing the written statement and without filing an application to set aside the ex-parte order passed against her on 29'04'2014' Only after passing the judgment and decree on25'03'2019' she filed the present application, which would disclose the conduct of the petitioner that she was watching the proceedings but not prosecuting the matter' Only after the decree waspassedcancellingtheregisteredsaledeeds,shelrledthepresentpetition. No reasons were given by the petitioner for the said inordinate delay for keeping quiet for such a Iong period from 29 '04 '2014 to 19 '07 '2019 ' The petitioner was calculatingthedelayas85daysfromthedateofpassingofthejudgmentand decree till the date of filing the application on 19'07'2019' She could have stated the same reasons given by her about converting the land from agriculture to non-agriculture use and its conversion into plots and alienating the same in favor of various purchasers, by filing written statement' Her keeping quite would raise a suspicion over her conduct that it was not bonafide' No plausible explanation was given by her to condone the delay except stating that she suffered with il_health. she had not given any details of her ifl-health' as to whatwasshesufferingwithorfronlwhichperiodtowhichperiodandwhyshe was unable to contact her counsel' 8

15. Leamt:d cr rLnsel for the petitioners relied upon .he iudgment of the Hon'ble Apex rl, r -t in rnder singh v. The State of l\{adlrrya pradesh (cited I supra) on the aspr::, that Dr.GRR, crp_953 2O2l " 14. Thurr c r r hc no quanel on the settled principle ot. lari, I har c ela1. cannot be condon..d r lthout sufficient cause. but a major aspect whi,:h ha; to be kept in mind is th.t f in a particular case, the merits have to be exr.mint d. it should not be sculllel rrerely on the basis of limitation.,, 16' In the said (rrrse itself, several other earlier casos oi'thr Hon,ble Apex court were a's<' r'r lerred to wherein in pathapati Subba Re,cdy v. speciar Depufy Colter:trrr I 2024 SCC Online SC 5 l3l, it was h,:ld rhar: "Courts rrt: ,r:npowered to exercise discretion to condont tht delay if sufficient cause lad been explained, but that exercise ofpcvver is clis crelionary in nature anrl rr ay not be exercised even if sufficient cause is estat,lished for various fact,,rs ,rrch as, where there is inordinate delay, neglip.encc and want ofdue dilige rc: . 17' As each :a;e ri, depend on its owI, facts and the discreticn of the court has to be exerc:scd tasing upon the facts of the case befcre ir arc the petitioner must able to sh,tr, :r lficient cause for condoning the dela1, atd n ust show that he / she had not ircl( c in negligent manner or failed to exerc ise ,lue diligence, the facts of the ,rt ,t., e case cannot be considered as binding on the present case. as the facts vary fi rrn oase to case. .i i I t1 9 DT.GRR,J crp-953 2021 The Hon'ble Apex Court in Baswaraj and Another v' Special Land

18. Acquisition Officer2, held that: ,.12. It is a settled legal proposition that law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The Court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. "A result flowing ftom a statutory provision is never an evil. A Court has no power to ignore that provision to relieve what it considers a distress resulting ftom its operation." The statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the Court has no choice but to enforce it giving fulI efl'ect to the same' The legal maxim "dura lex sed lef' which means "the law is hard but it is the taw"' stands attracted in such a situation. It has consistently been held that' "inconvenience is not" a decisive factor to be considered while interpreting a statute' 13. The Statute of Limitation is founded on public policy' its aim being to secure peace in the community' to suppress ftaud and perjury' to quicken diligence and to prevent oppression' It seeks to bury all acts ofthe past which have not been agitated unexplainably and have from lapse of time become According to Halsbury's Laws of England' Vot 24' p' 181 : "330. Policy of Limitation Acts' The courts have expressed at least three differing reasons supporting the existence of statutes of limitations namely' (1) that long dormant claims have more of cruelty than justice in them' (2) that a defendant might have lost the evidence to disprove a stale claim' and (3) that persons with good causes of actions should pursue them with reasonable diligence". An unlimited limitation would lead to a sense of insecurity and uncertainty' and therefore, limitation prevents disturbance or deprivation of what may have '22013 (14) Scc 81 10 Dr.GRR, crp_953_2021 been acqrrirr:rl in equity and justice by long enjoyment c,r whlt mr Ly have been lost by I part.r; own inaction, negligence, or laches. (See: I'opaf and Kotecha property v. State B:rnk of lndia Staff Assn. [(.)0,')-< ) i SCC 510]; Rajendar Singh & Ors, v. Santa Sirrgh & Ors., IAIR 1 9; \ :',(: 2537]; and pundlikJatampatil v. Exec utivr E Jalgaon Ittert um project ngineer, [(2008) 17 SCC 448]

14. IaP. R.arn nchandraRao v. State of Karnataka [AIit 20(,2 S( lg56], this court h:Li rtat judicially engrafting principles of ri;nitatron rnounts to legislatirLg ar r would fly in the face of law laid down by :he ( tonstitution Bench in A It. ,tntulay v. RS. Nayak[AIR 1992 SC 17t I J. 15. The lay on the issue can be summarized to the effect rhat r,.hcrc a case has been prererrte,l r I the court beyond limitation, the applicant has b ;xplain the court as to wl-:. was the ..sufficient cause,, which mearls iul adt quate and enough reas,rn rhich prevented him to approach the court ri itr.r n rinritation. In case a part) is 1 r:rnd to be negligent, or for want of bonallde or r his oart in the facts and ci'cr r I ;tances of the case, or found to have nor actr.d di. igently or remained ilrcti. t , there cannot be a justified ground to condon,: the delay. No court could re ustifled in condoning such an inordinate dela,. bi. imposing any condi:ic, I hatsoever. The application is to be decided onlr riirhin thc parameter:r I Lirl l,rwn by this court in regard to the condonatic n of delay. in case there tl-ls llL, sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approar h th( court on time condoninll the delay without any justification, putling m\ )ondition whatsoever. lnt,Imts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provlsrons anrl it iLntamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislatute.,, 19' As the prtirir:r ('r failed to give any plausible expranar ion for the delay caused in filing thr: p'r.ition to set aside the judgment and decree i;r o.s.No.362 of 2013 dated 2:i 'a3 10 19 and failed to give any deta,s o. her i, J Lealth or abre to show sufhcienr cause for condoning the deray in firing t^e p:tition to set ', 11 DT.GRR' J crp_953 2O2l aside the ex-parte order passed against het or 29'04'2014 and as to why she kept quiet for all these years without contesting the matter, this court does not find any error in the order passed by the trial court in dismissing the application filed by her to set aside the judgment and decree in O'S'No'362 of 2013 dated

25.03.2019.

20. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the order passed by the leamed I Additional District Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar in I.A.No.490 of 2Ol9 in O'S'No'362 of 2013 dated 30'04'2021' No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending in this petition' if any' shall stand closed. /TTRUE COPY/I N AGAB HUsttltilgn D EPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, The I Additional District Judge' Ranga Reddy District at L B Nagar' one CC to SRI VENKATA RANGADAS KANURI Advocate [oPUCl One cc to SRl. A KESHAVA REDDY Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies '1.

2. 4 TUgh \q HIGH COIJR I OATED:1ftlo,Uit( ?5 ORDER CRP.No-953 of il( 2i o DtsMtstsNci THE' :.R.P. C,@ Sr

4.==" '- )G' ( 'r.qr(' 1B ,tUl 2m ' I '; ,,-.-^ . 'i/ '-. ,! i*a .---'