The High Court · 2025

Smt. Saleema Begum, Wo Abdul Reheman Sab, aged about 69 years, Occupation. Housewife, R/o Bandavelikicheral, Kulakcherla Mandal, Vikarabad district. ...PETITIONERS/ Plaintff AND 1, Late Nune Bichanna, S/o Anthaiah, Aged about 74 years, Occ. Agriculture, 2. Smt. Manemma, Wo Late Nune Bichanna, Aged about 60 years, Occ. Housewife, 3- Smt. Ramadevi, Wo Chendraiah, Aged about 36 years, Occ. Housewife, All R/o Madipal village Kulakcherla Mandal. Vikarabad District. (The respondent No.2 and 3 are the LRS of Late N. Buchanna (Defendant No.1) ...RESPONDENTS/ Respondents lA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 in the OS No. 6/2014 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Parigi, Vikarabad District, pending disposal of the Civil Revision Petition, in the interest of justice Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. P. SHIVA REDOY Counsel forthe Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 : SRI GANDYADAPU RAJESHAM The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTTCE T. VTNOD KUMAR !sa P onN 1 ot2 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents and perused the record.

2. This Civil Revision petition is filed aggrieved by the order dt.24.03.2023 in I.A.No.452 0f 2019 in o.s.No.6 0f 2ot4 0n the fire of the lunior Civil Judge, pargi, Vikarabad District. 3' The petitioner herein is the praintiff in the suit fired by her for grant of perpetual injunction against the respondents herein.

4. The petitioner herein had filed the underlying interlocutory apprication in the aforesaid suit under section 5 0f the Limitation Act, 1g63 (for short, 'the Act,), on 30.10.2019, to condone the delay of 821 days in bringing the legar representatives of respondent No.1/defendant No.1 on record in the aforesaid suit.

5. The petitioner while seeking condonation of delay of g21 days, had claimed that being an old aged woman, she was unable to meet her counsel within time and also on account of the fact that she is suffering from ill-health since long time, and as such, the delay in filing the underlying application had occurred and sought for condoning the same. 2 \ ...1

6. The underlying interlocutory application was opposed by the respondents herein by filing counter' On behalf of the respondents' it is contended that the delay of 821 days in bringing the legal representatives of . the l't respondent is not a small delay' more pafticularly' when the petitioner had fired the suit for grant of perpetuar injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the suit schedule land in Sy.No.343/7/1 admeasuring Acs'4'37 guntas situated at Bandavelikicherla Village, claiming to have purchased the same under registered sale deed dt.19.06.1986 and the respondents herein are trying to illegally occupy the suit land. It is also contended by the respondents that the petitioner except 7. claiming to be suffering from ill-health for such long period' did not produce any material to substantiate the aforesaid claim' It is further contended on behalf of the respondents that since' the petitioner did not state the ground for the delay with sufflcient details' the delay of 821 days in bringing the legal representatives of the ld defendant in the suit cannot be condoned and the suit against the 1d defendant stood abated' B. The Court below taking note of the respective contentions on both sides had placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of P,K.Ramchandran v/s' State of Kerad' wherein it was held that' ' (1997) 7 scc ss6 3 "In the absence of reasonable, satisfactory or even appropriate explanatbn for seeking condonation of deray, the same is not condoned lightly. It is further obserued that while exerctsing discretjon for condonatron of de/af the Court has to exercise discretion Judiciously. _ 9' The court berow further praced reriance on the decision in the case of Baswaraj and another v,/s. Special Land Acquisition Officey' in coming to conclusion that the petitioner did not explain the delay sufficiently nor placed on record any material to substantiate the claim made by her in the aFfidavit filed in support of the apptication filed under Section 5 of the Act and accordingly dismissed the same. 10. Though on behalf of the petitioner, it was sought to be contended that since, the petitioner is an old aged woman and suffering from ill_ health and as such not being able to contact her counsel, the petitioner on the other hand, claimed of the respondents illegally interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property, in which case, the petitioner ought to have taken steps to pursue the suit filed by her by bringing the legal representatives of the 1$ defendant on record, who admittedly had deceased in )uly, 2017, as it is the case of the petitioner that it is the 1st defendant who was interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. 'zorE (z) arr q: (sc) 4

11. Further, the petitioner except stating that she is suffering from ill- health did not adduce any evidence to substantiate the aforesaid claim before the Court below in the underlying interlocutory application' Thus' the Court below having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court as relied upon by the respondents had come to a conclusion that the delay of 821 days cannot be considered as reasonable delay' for it to be condoned without substantiating the claim made in the underlying interlocutory application filed before it' 1

12. lt is trite law that not each day of delay in filing the petition under Section 5 of the Act is to be explained with evidence but the delay of substantial period is required to be explained satisfactorily'

13. In the facts of the present case' the petitioner except stating of suffering from ill-health did not adduce any evidence in the interlocutory application as can be seen from the order' for this Couft to hold that the order of the Court below in dismissing the underlying interlocutory application as suffering from error for being interfered with in the present Civil Revision Petition.

14. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner having failed to explain the delay of 821 days in filing the underlying interlocutory application with reasonable and satisfactory evidence' the order of ihflCourt below does not suffer from any infirmity for being 5 interfered with by this Couft in exercise of revisionary jurisdiction under Nlicle 227 of the Constitution of India.

15. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.

16. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this revision petition shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// sD/- MOHD. lsMAlL I EpuwREGlsrRAR / SECTION OFFICER To, The Junior Civil Judge' Pargi' Vikarabad District One CC to SRl. P SHIVA REDDY Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI GANDYADAPU RAJESHATVI' Advocate IOPUCI Two CD CoPies

1. 2 3 4 kut/gh ?r HIGH COURT DATED:2810312025 ORDER CRP.No.1506 of 2023 ,) J1 I ) ',9t DISMISSING THE CIVIL RI]VISION PE'|ITION (* 6 zl 1Ro St. i/.1 2 I ,tuu M! (r, I + D4 icl if-tl *