The High Court · 2025

Petitiorr 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 suspend the tJismissal order passed in the condone delay petition dated 03-07- 2a19 against i.A.No. 727 of 2015 in unregistered AS No. of 2O1S on the file of lX Additional district Judge. Kamareddy and to condone the delay of 21gg days in filing the first erppeal before the lX Additional District Judge. Kamareddy. lA NO: 2 OF 2019 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 passing final decree in O.S.No. 112 OF 2O02, on the file of lX Additional District Judge. Kamareddy and to condone the delay of 2198 days in filing the first appeal before the lX Additional district judge. Kamareddy. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI V.SARAF SUDHAKAR Gounsel for the Respondents Nos.l ,2,4 and 5: sRl vlJAy B pARopAKARI The Court maderthe following: ORDER I I I I THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSTNG RAO NANDIKONDA CIVI REVTSION ITION No.1970 of2019 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed by rhe petitioners/defendants assailing the order dated 03.07.2019 in I.A.No.727 of 2015 in unregistered Appeal Suit of the year, zol5 passed by the learned tX Additional District Judge, Kamareddy (hereinafter referred to as "trial Court"), wherein the learned Judge dismissed the application filed for condonation of delay of 2198 days.

2. The brief facts of the case in a nutshell are that originally the suit for partition and separate possession, in respect of suit schedule property i.e., agricultural land to an extent of Ac.0.09 guntas in Sy.No.759 and also an extent of Ac.l.38 guntas in Sy.No.762 situated at Domakonda Village, was filed by the respondents/plaintiffs against the petitioners/defendants in o.S-No.ll2 of 2002 on the file of Junior civil Jude, Kamareddy and the said suit was preliminarily decreed on 17.08.2009 in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs, against which, the petitioners herein preferred an appeal along with an application 2 NNR,T C.R.P.No.l970 of 2019 in I.A.ltio.721 of 2015 to condone the delay of 2198 days in presentrng the appeal. The said application was heard and dismiss,:d by the learned IX Additional District Judge, Kamareddy

3. Assailing the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed seeking to set-aside the impugned order passed by the trial Court on the ground that the petitioner/appellant No.1 fell sick due to heart problem and he could not prefer the appeal within the stipulated time before the trial Court. tt is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the appellant No.l instructerl his counsel before the trial Court to file the appeal, the counsel before the trial Court failed to file the appeal even though the copies of all the material documents, medical certificatt:, judgment and decree were handed over to him and the petitioners herein came to know that the case file was misplacec[ in the office of their counsel before the trial Court. However, case file was handed over to them on 15.10.2015, having been traced out and sought to be condoned, wherein the respondents/plaintiffs filed a counter denying the averments made in the petition, contending ., NNR,I CR.P.No.1970 of 2019 petitioners/appellants/defendants were aware of the fact that respondent No.3 died on 28.04.2013 and still she was madeas a party to the proceedings deliberately with a mala fide intentiron. It is further mentioned that there was inordinate delay of 2l9g days, for which, no cogent reasons were offered nor explained as to the day-to-day delay, further, to show that the petitioner/appellant No.1 was suffering heart problem, no medical report or any prescriptions were furnished. It is further mentioned that during the relevant period, the petitioner/appellant No.l was very much active and never fell sick and even some criminal cases were registered against him.

4. Having heard both sides and considering the material on record, the trial Court dismissed the said t.A. on the ground that the petitioner/appellant No.l failed to show sufficient cause to condone the delay of 2198 days in presenting the appeal and thereby dismissed the petition accordingly.

5. Being aggrieved by the same, the present civil Revision Petition is filed contending that the trial court ought to have allowed the delay condone petition and that no prejudice would ! i o ,.*r.*..rrrolifi!, be caused to respondents/plaintiffs as there are relevant pleadings as mentioned in the plaint vis-a-vis written statement. It is further contended that the leamed Judge misunderstood the nature of the suit and dismissed the application of the revision petitiorrer without any regard and perspective to the nature of relief claimed in the suit being one for partition and separate possession and that it is obvious to file an application for passing final de,cree and the respondents/plaintiffs filed an application for passing final decree vide l.A.No.2l 5 of 2012 and the revision petitiont:rs have got no chance to avail the opportunity to file counter in the said I.A.No.2l5 of 2012. It is further contended that the trial Court passed the orders in I.A.No.2l5 of 2012 by appointirrg the Advocate Commissioner on 25.0g.2015 to partition the suit schedule property as per the preliminary decree dated 17.08.2009 in O.S.No. ll2 of 2002 and to file report. It is further contended that the notice of the above said application has been served upon the counsel for the revision petitioners but the revision petitioner/appellant No.l could not file any counter in the above application due to his health condition. The trial Court wit.lout taking into consideration of the said facts and I! I circumstances, dismissed the application. Hence, prayed to allow 5 NNR,J C.R.P.No.I970 of 2019 the Civil Revision Petition. 6- Heard sri v.S.sudhaker, learned counsel for the revision petitioners/defendants and Sri vijay B.Paropakari, Iearned counsel for respondent Nos. l, 2, 4 and S/plaintiff Nos. I ,2, 4 and 5. Perused the record.

7. Having heard and perused the entire material on record and the order passed by the learned Judge of the trial Court, the main grievance of the revision petitioners is that the revision petitioner/appellant No.l could not appear before the trial Court and contest the same due to medical grounds and the learned Judge did not consider that the petitioner/appetlant No.l was suffering from ill-health. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order passed by the trial court and contended that though it is contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that the petitioner/appellant No.l fell sick, in fact, at paragraph No.8 the learned Judge observed that no medical reports were placed in support of their contention that the petitioner/appellant No.1 -was suffering from ill-health. Even this ffi-" 6 NNR,J C-R.P.No-1970 of 2019 Court perused the entire findings given by the trial Court at paragraph No.8, which shows that the learned Judge has gone into the entire material and held that there is no medical report to show that the petitioner/appellant No.1 was from suffering ill-health, on the said ground the learned Judge disbelieved the contention of the petitio rer that the petitioner could not file the appeal as he was suffering from ill-health and the medical reports, which are crucial are nol been placed before the Court. Learned Judge also pointed out that Ex.Rl to R14 are filed against the petitioner/appellant No.l and th.at various criminal cases were registered against the petitiorrer/appellant No.l, which is evident from the perusal of the above Ex,Rl to Rl4 and Ex.R7 further discloses that petitioner/appellant No.l acted as a Chairman for Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society Ltd., Domakonda for the period from 2ti.07 .1995 to 06.07 .2004 and also worked as Saqpanch of the Village Dornakonda as per Ex.RS from 23.08.2006 to 22.04.2008 and agrrin tiom 07.05.2008 to 22.08.2011, who acted as public represerrtative, hence, rules out his ill-health up to 22.08.2011, which is beyond the date of the Judgment and Decree dated

17.08.2009 in O.S.No.ll2 of 2002, as such the contention of the 7 NNR,I C.R.P.No.I970 of 2019 petitioner/appellant No.l was disbelieved by the trial Court and accordingly, dismissed the said application for condoning the delay of2198 days.

8. Admittedly, the delay, which is caused is about 6 to 7 years from the date of the Judgment and decree and it is also pointed out by both the counsel that as on today, the said suit had reached to a point of passing of the final decree and nothing left before trial Court. Going into the said aspect of inordinate delay of 2198 days in presenting the appeal and the reasons cited before the trial Court on the ground of delay and also on the ground that they could not secure the file from their counsel and file appeal before the trial Court, whereas, it is clearly evident from the cause title that besides respondent No.l, there are other petitioners/appellants, who are parties to the suit and there is no reason cited why the other petitioners have not taken any steps in the case.

9. Considering the entire aspects mentioned above and the findings given by the trial Court and perusing the entire material placed by the respondents, reveals that the reasons cited by the petitioner/appellant No.l iE not believable and the learned Judge 8 NN&I C.RP.No.l970 of20l9 rightly d:smissed the petition. This Court does not see any ground to interfere with the said findings and decision of the learned trial Court.

10. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. A.JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY'/ I t EI : ; ,. t I I : i . I To,

1. The lX Atlditional District Judge' Kamareddy' 2. One CC tr SRI V. SARAF SUDHAKARAdvocate IOPUC] 3. One CC tc SRI VIJAY B PAROPAKARI Advocate [OPUCI 4. Two CD OoPies NVB/PSL b@ HIGH GOURT DATED i2011112025 I lr D ER CRP.No.1970 of 201 a THE S t C) * fl 3 ,.,r,? 2n1( * DISMISSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION ,J os ,*/,,