The High Court · 2025

2. Ananthaiah Goud, S/o. fMogulaiah Goud, Aged 42 years 3. Veeresh Goud (died) per LRs 4. Smt. Vijay Laxmi @ Jayamma, Wo. Late Nagesh Goud, Aged 35 years 5. Mallesh Goud, S/o- Late Nagesh Goud, Aged '17 years 6. Suresh @ Devender Goud, S/o. Late Nagesh Goud, Aged 14 years (Respondent No. 5 & 6 are minors under the care, custody and guardianship of their mother Jayamma - Respondent No.4) 7. Smt. Anjamma, Wo. Shaker Goud. Aged 47 yearc Respondent No.'1 to 7 are residents of Marepally Village, Kondapur Nlandal, Medak District, Telangana State

8. Enkathala Padma, Wo. Late Veeresh Goud, Aged 40 years, Occ. Household 9. Enkathala Chaitanya, D/o. Veeresh Goud. Aged 22 years, Occ. Student 10. Enkathala Shekar Goud, S/o. Late Veeresh Goud, Aged 2'1 years, Occ. Student 11 12 13 14 15 '16 Respondent No. I to 10 are residents of H.No 4-1514, Mallepally Village, Kondapur IVlan,lal. Sangareddy District Enkathala Srrnivias Goud, S/o. Late Shankar Goud, Aged 45 yeats Enkathala Madhi: Goud, S/o Late Shankar Goud, Aged 42 year:; Enkathala Ranresh Goud, S/o Late Shankar Goud, Aged 40 years Respondent No. '1 1 to '13 are agriculturists and residents of [Vlallerpally Village, Konbapur tt/an,lal, Medak Distrrct, Telangana State Smt. Gamagoni lrentamma, Wo Anthaiah, Aged Ma.jor Gamagoni Ranrulu, S/o. Ananthaiah, Aged tvlajor Gamagoni ttlallarah, S/o. Ananthaiah, Aged Major Resoondent No. 14 to 16 are aqriculturists and residents of Terp'rle Village, Konbapur Man,lal, Medak District. Telangana State ...Respondents / ResPondents lA NO: 2 OF 2023 Petition under Section '1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in sr.rpport of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all the further proceeciings pursuant to the Judgment and Decree daled 12.12.2018 of the Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy in O.S. No 40/2015 Counsel for the Petitioner I Sri Purnima Singh Counsel for the Respondents : The Court made the following Order : ,/ 7, THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE K.SUJANA CML REVISION PETITION No'2O46 OF 2ol23 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is Iiled by petitioner against the order dated 05'01'2023 in I'A'No'535 of 2020 in AS.SR.No. 122 6 of 2O2O on the hle of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, SangareddY' For the sake of convenience' hereinafter' the parties

2. will be referred as per their array before the trial Court' The lacts of the case are that the plaintiffs frled the ' 3. suit against defendants for partition and separate possession of the agricultural land i'e'' an extent of Ac 14- 26 grntas in Survey No'273 of Mellepally village' which was acquired from their ancestor by way of succession' The plaintiff and defendants Nos'1 to 3 are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule land' After demise of Shankar Goud, who is the father of defendant Nos'l to 3 with collusion of defendants Nos'4 to 7 have mismanaged the joint. family undivided property and got recorded their names and trying to alienate the same' The suit was {iled against the defendants and defendants have not contested the suit and they were set as ex-parte oo 12'12'2018' Now' by way of impugned application' the defendant No'7 sought tocondonethedelayof38Tdaysinfilingtheapplicationto 2 ,I(J:J CRP No 2016,f2023 set aside the ex parte decree dated 12.12.2018. It is their case that they could not appear before the trial Cour._ on

12.12.2018 because their counsel teft the job. It is strrted that the de.lendants have no knowledge that their cou nsel left the job and he was the only advocate appointecl to represent ttre defendants in the suit. In drese circumstances, the defendants failed to file written statement til.L 19.O1.2016 and on 09.O1.2Oi8 petitiorrers were set oc-)oarte and the suit was decree ex parte on

12.72.2O1a u,hich is neither wanton nor willful but for the reasons stal,ed above. Further, delendants came to ktrow about the su:i1 only when they made enquire about the case. Soon after delbndant No.7 appointed a lawyer to look after, the legal affilrrs of the petitioner and he obtained certitied copies on O9.)7.2O2O and hled application to condone the delay of 387 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex pante decree daLed 12.12.2018.

4. By thr: impugned order, the petition hled by defendant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act v/as dismissed re.jecting the request for condoning the delay of 387 days in filing the application to set aside the ex porte decree, dated O5.01 .2023. J s(s.J CRP No.2046 of202j Heard Sri Purnima Singh, learned counsel for the

5. revision petitioner. Though notice was served, none appeared on behalf of respondents. Perused the material available on record. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended

6. that the appellate Court ought to have considered the judgments relied upon the petitioner in proper light He further contended that in the revenue records the petitioner name was recorded, which itself shows that petitioner have rights over the property and if the delay was not condoned, the petitioner will lose the rights over the immovable property. In this regard, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'b1e Apex Court in N.Balakrishnan a' M.Krishnamurthgl an.d prayed the Court to allow the revision petition. 7 . The Section 5 of Limitation Act reads as under : "sectio't 5 in The Llmitdtion Act, 7963: 5 Dxtension of prescibed peiod in certain cases. - Ang appeal or anA application, other than an application under ang of the prouisions of Order XXI of the Code of Ciuil Procedure, 19O8 (5 of 19O8), may be admitted afier the prescribed peiod, if the appetlant or the applicont satisfes the court that he lnd suJficient cause for not prefening the appeal or making the application within such peiod' Explaiation.- The Jact that the appellant or the appticont utas misled bg ony order, practice or judgment of the High Court in ascertaining or I (199E) 7 scc t21 , I 4 s(5.-,r CRP tYo.201( of2023 cotnpL'.ting the prescribed peiod maA be sufficient cause uithin the meaning of thjs section" A plzrin reading of the above makes it abund lntly clear that if the revision petitioner satisfies the Court with sufficient ,tzruse for not filing the petition within the stipulated pcriod, then the said petition can be allowed.

8. It is pertinent to note that the trial Court passed ex parte decree on 72.12.2018 against defendants and further they came to know about the suit only when they enqr-Lired about the case before the trial Court. Immediately, they obtained th.e relevant papers of the suit proceedings and appointed a lawyer for looking after the all legal matters on behalf of tfu: rompany at Sangareddy and filed applicatic,n of condone the delay of 387 days in I.A.No.535 of 2O2O in AS.SR.No. 1iZ1).6 of 2O2O on the file of the principal District and Sessiot-rs; Judge, Sangareddy, to set aside ex parte decree date,C L2.12.2O18, which was dismissed. As the petitioner rights involved in the immovable property, if the delay did not condoned, the petitioner will lose the riilhts over the imraovable property. It is further observed that the party shoulcl not suffer for fault of the counsel and also in the judgme:rt. stated (supra), Apex Court observed rhat " While condorting the delag tLe Court should not forget the opposite pctntg altogether. It much be borne in mind thot he is 5 sKs."/ CRP No.2046 of2023 a loser ond he too tttould. haue inanned quite large litigation expenses. It rttould be o salutary guideline that uhen Courts condone the delay due to laches on tLe pafi of the applicdnt, the Court shall compensate the opposite partg for his loss' Furthermore, the relief sought in the suit is for partition and separate possession. Hence, this Court is inclined to give an opportunity to the revision petitioner to contest the suit instead of appeasing the matter in a narrow compass or on technicalities Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed 9. setting aside the order dated O5.O 1 '2023 in I'A'No'535 of 2O2O rt AS.SR.No. 1226 of 2O2O on the hle of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Sangareddy is allowed on the payment of cost of Rs.5,OO0/- to respondents' Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed I //TRUE COPY// Sd/. MOHD. ISMAIL ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I S CTION OFFICER To, 1 2 The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Sangareddy One CC to Sri Purnima Singh, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED:2410112025 , ( a 1tr AIE o , c.I t- 2 B ['ii ?il75 t r)15;:1 -cY. iC ORDER CRP.No.2046 of 2023 ALLOWING THE CRP lf)t4' 5