The High Court · 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 grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the order dated 19.06 2024 in 1.A.No,350 of 2024 in C.M.A.No.5 of 2024 on the fite of principal District Judge, Vikarabad District, pending disposal of the above civil Revision petition and pass such other order or orders / / Counsel for the Petitioner: SRt. BOTLA VENKATESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: SRI RAMESH,a The Court made the following ORDER: ) THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K' SUJANA C L REVISION PETITION No'1928 OF 2o24 ORDER: This revision petition is preferred by lh'e revision petitioner challenging the order dated 19'O6'2024 passed in IA.No.35O L':l' 2024 in CMA.No 5 of 2024 on the fi1e of the Principal District Judge, Vikarabad District'

2. Thc brief facts of the case are that tlre revislon petitioner filed IA.No.35O of 2024 under Section 15i of CPC to de-numbr:r CMA.No.5 of 2024 contending that the same is not maintairtable trl the absencc of appropriate zrpplication to condonc thc abtlormal delay in filing the same, a'nd averring that despitc being au'are of thc orders passed in IA No 1618 of 2Ol9 cltrterl 29.0.3.2O23, CMA No'254 of 20213 was hled with malicious int(rllt to harass the petitioner through frivolous litrgation, causing unnecessary delay 'and wasting over a ycar u'ithout separating the share of the property of petitioner. Further, that after the dismissal of tne said CMA'' the respondents filed CMA.No.5 of 2024 with()lrt condoning 2 SKS,J CRP No.1928 OF 2024 the inordinate delay, misleading the Court and obtaining a numbered filing without submitting a supporting application to condone the delay, thereby, abusing the legal process with malahde intentions, rendering the petition rion-maintainable without condoning the delay. After hearing both sides, the appellate Court dismissed the said IA., aggrieved thereby, this revision petition is hled.

3. Heard Sri B.Venkateshwar Rao, learned counsel for revlslon petitioner, and Sri l.Ramesh, learned counsel for respondents.

4. karned counsel for revision petitioner submitted that the impugned order of the appellate Court is replete with jurisdictional errors, material irregularities, and contraventions of established legal principles. He contended that the appeal of respondents was filed well beyond the stipulated limitation period, and yet, the appellate Court failed to address this glaring infirmity. He lamented that the appeal of respondents did not contain the requisite averments seeking exemption from limitation under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, which is a mandatory requirement, and that ,.] 3 SKS,J CRP.No.1928 oF 2024 despite this omission, the appellate Court prrrr:r:erled to entertain thi trppeal, which resulted in violzrting the fundamentzrl principlcs of timitation and due pr:cess He averredthatrltcrt:sportclentshadhledanapplicationseeking condonation oI de lay, but the appellate Court t:l'roneously returned thc application without numberinl; it' and notwithstandrng this, the appellate Court proceetirld to hear the interloc'.rtory applications of petitioner' which was improper ancl 1:rejudicial to the rights of petitioner' He

5. furt her contended that the reliance pl;x:ed by the Cc)url ()n tl-re judgment rendered in lhe case of appellate Purni Devi & Another vs. Babu Ram & Anothetl was misplaced atrcl misapplicd, as the facts trnd circttnrstances of the present case \('ere entirely different' Furth':r' that the appellate Cou|t failcrl to record any finding's over the entitlement ol respondents to the benef-rt of Section 14 of the Limitation Ar;t, q'hich was a critical issue in the case He asserted thal the failure of appellate Court to erddress t]re respondents delay, r>mission of necessary averlnents' and misappiicatron ol' Iegal principles have resultecl in a grave 'sLc 1C1 tto.l;oes of 2018 datod 02 04'2022 I I l I l I I i I 4 SKS,J CRP.No- l92a OF 2024 *ii3&i€ miscarriage of justice to petitioner, which necessitates intervention by this Court. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the judgments rendered in the cases of Suman Devi v. Manisha Devi and Others2, Carona Ltd v. Paravathy Swaminathan and Sons3, and Arun Kumar and Others v. Union of India and Others4. Therefore, he prayed this Court to allow the revision petition, setting aside the impugned order dated 19.06.2024.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondents opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner, stating that there are no irregularities or illegalities in the impugned order and that the appellate Court has rightly dismissed IA.No.3SO of 2024. He contended that the respondents' actions were guided by a genuine desire to seek legal recourse, rather than any malahde intentions or delay tactics. He asserted that the respondents had promptly hled CMA No.254 of 2023 wherein, order of status quo was granted on 22.03.2024, thereby, demonstrating their diligence in pursuing their legal rights, and that the said CMA., was 2 l AtR 2018 5C 3912 2007 8 SCC 559 2001 1'CC 732 5 SKS,J CRP.No l')2a OF 2024 dismissed ort 04 .O4 .'20'24, granting leave to app-oach the competent Civil (lor-rrt, and the same was a clear indication that the respouclen ts' ellbrts were made in good izLith' and that being so, u'ithout insisting over the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, the case was numbered' and that in this context, CN{A No.5 of 2024 was filed within th') period of limitation, withollt any delay, from the date of dismissal of CMA No.254 ctf 2023 <'tn 04 'O4 '2024' Therefore' he eLdvocated that the petition, which seeks to challenge the mairLtainability of the responrlents' appcal on grounds of limitation' is liable to be dismissed, given the respondents' demonstrlrble good faith and diligenr;e in pursuing their legal rernedies ln support of his <:ontentions, he placed relianr:e' on the judgment renclt:re<l in thc case of Vijay Kumar Rampal and Others v. Diwan Devi and Otherss and prayed thi:i Court to dismiss 1fii5 ;evision pcl il ion.

7. Having regard lo [he rival submissions made' and on going through the matcrial placed on record, it is r-roted that the only issr:e in this revision petition is whether the application under Section 14 of the Act is necessary in hling ' AIR t985 sc 166g .l 6 SKS,J CRP.No.1928 OF 2024 CMA before the appellate Court. The record would show that respondents hled CMA.No.254 of 2023 beforc this Court which was dismissed along with all connected applications on the ground of maintainability, and granting leave to the appellants to approach the competent civil Court challenging the judgment dated 29.03.2023 passed in IA.No.1618 of 20t9.

8. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that no observation was made by this Court in CMA.No.254 of 2023 with regard to the bonafules of the respondents, and when there is no such hnding the trial Court cannot travel beyond the said order of this Court , as such, it is clear that for computation of limitation period, the time consumed by the respondents/appeilants before this Court i.e., the period from the date of filing of CMA.No.254 of 2023 till the same was dismissed by this Court on 04.O4.2024 has to be excluded as it cannot be said that the said proceedings was prosecuted by the. respondents in bad faith, and with absolute clarity of grant of leave to approach the competent civil Court. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that the appellate Court has rightly condoned the delay in hling CMA.No.S of 7 SKS,J CRP.No.1928 OF 2024 irregularities are no illegalities or 2024 and that there committed in Passing IA.No.350 of 2024 interference of this Court' There are no merits in lh''s revtston petition, and the same is liable to be dismissed order dated 19 '06 '2024 in CMA.No'S ol 2024 p,assed in u arranting this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed AccordinglY, g . There shall be no order as to costs' Miscellaneousapplications,ifanypending,shallalso stand ciosed / :l ':Blir'#3'$RiR SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To 1

2. The Principal District Judge' Vikarabad District' One CC to SRI BOTLA VENKATESWARA RAO Advociate IOPUCI One CC to SRI l' RAt\ilESH' Advocate [OPUC] J. . Two CD CoPies 4. k-ul Yr HIGH COURT SKSJ DATED:26/03/2025 ORDER CRP.No.1928 ot 2024 -':-'-: s r,l -_-:r- 0 E AI',fl ?[25 * (r1:q p1.r C.\ r(! ,'-\ 1,, \ z DISMISSING Tl Itr CIvll. I{EVISION PETII ION WI-IHOUT COS'I'S G .ed u> h*