The High Court · 2024

...RespondenURespondenUPetitioner/Defendant No.5 in SA and l.A.No.1 of 2024

2. Sri Chiperi Mallaiah, S/o Pochaiah, Aged about 76 years, Occ Business, R/o Narsingi Village, Gandipet Mandal , Ranga Reddy District 75. 3- Kosaraju Jagan Mohan Rao, S/o Sri K Ramaiah Chowdary, Aged about 58 years, Occ Business, R/o Flat No. '149, Road No 72, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad JJ.

4. Kosaraju Balaji, S/o K Ramaiah Chowdary, Aged about 55 years, Occ Business, R/o BAAS, Sy No. 8 H No. 2l lB/D, Khanapur, Gandipet Mandal, Rangareddy District 75. 5, The Deputy Collector and Tahsildar, Gandipet Mandal earlier Rajendranagar, Mandal, Ranga Reddy District 75. (Respondent No.2 to 5 not necessary party in the appeal) ...RespondenURespondents/Defendants in SA and l.A.No.1 ot 2024 lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under order 39 Rule 1 and 2 R/w Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased grant injunction restraining the respondent No 3 and 4 from making any construction or changing the nature of the property measuring Acre l - '10 gts in sy No '104 of Kokapet Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal RR Dist-pending disposal of the appeal. Schedule of the property All that part and parcel of the land measuring Acre 1 -10 gutntas in Sy No 104 Sy No 104 of Kokapet Village Rajendra Nagar tvlandel RR Dist and bounded as follows North Land of Mulla sheb SOUTH lnam land of Butcaiah West Vage East. Reamrning land rnSy 104. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under section 5 of Limitation Act praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 132 days in filing the second appeal in the interest of Justice. Counsel for the Appellant: Sri T Sharath Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Sri Tarun G Reddy The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA I.A.No.1 of 2024 In And S.A.No.277 of 2024 COMMON ORDER: This application is filed to condone the delay of 132 days in filing the second appeal

2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that petitioner had fiied a suit uide O.S.No.21 of 2016, for declaration to declare the decree and Judgment dated

30.03.1982, passed in O.S.No.288 of 198O and for cancellation of the sa,le deed dated f 2.09. i985 uide document No.6454 of 1985 and also for correction of revenue records in respect of the land admeasuring Ac. 1-1O gts in Sy.No. 104, Kokapet, Ranga Reddy District. Respondent No.1 herein had hled an application uide 1.A.No.269 of 2022, for rejection of ptaint on the ground that under Section 9 of C.P.C, a suit for cancellation of entries in the revenue records is forbidden by law and it is expressly and impliediy barred by special statute. The trial Court by Order dated 02.O8.2023, allowed the appiication hled for rejection of plaint. Aggrieved by the said Order, petitioner preferred the hrst appeal along with I.A.No.2799 of 2023, to condone the delay of 12 days in hling the appeal, but the said application was \ 2 di sm isscd on 16.11.2023, against which petitioner preferred C.R.P.Nr>.3523 of 2023, before this Court 3 initially rcspondents Learned counser for the petitioner furthcr contendecr that took preliminary objection that Civil Revision pctition is not maintainable against the dismissal Order of thc condone delay petition in filing the appeal and only second appcal lies against the said Order. Accordingly, revision petrtlon u,as dismissed on t4.06.2024 as not maintaina ble Now, petitioncr intcnds to file second appeal and he is entitled to the benefit of time taken for prosecuting the revision belbre this Court, as such no delay can be attributed in filing the appeal. He filed the present application to condone the delay of I32 days. The clelay has to be counted from 1g. l1.2o23and the limitation ends on 16.O2.2024 and the period of limitaLion i.e., 9O days has to lre cxt.luded.

4. in the counter filed by respondent No.3, he reiterated the contents of the petition and stated that second appeal is filed at a belated point of time, when Civil Revision petition was dismissed on the ground of non_maintainability. Section l4 of the Limitation Act, 1963, deals with exclusion of time of proceedings bona f.de in court without juriscriction. The Hon,bre / J Apex Court in a catena of decisions categorically held that in order to attract the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the Court must necessarily be satisfied that both the prior and subsequent proceedings are to be prosecuted by the same party and prior proceedings have to be prosecuted with due diligence and in good faith. The failure of the prior proceedings was due to defect of jurisdiction or other cause of like nature. The earlier proceedings and latter proceedings must relate to the same matter in issue.

5. He further stated that as per catena of decisions, in order to attract the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, Court must observe the hve conditions and due-diligence and caution are essential prerequisites. Petitioner ought to have preferred an appeal, when the application was dismissed on the ground of limitation as it amounts to finally deciding the matter on merits. Instead of that, petitioner filed Civil Revision Petition negligently and he had neither pleaded nor demonstrated the exercise of due diligence, as such petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. When respondents objected the maintainability of Revision Petition, instead of withdrawing the matter, petitioner contested the same and it shows lack of good faith. The provisions of Section 4 14 of the Limitation Act, cannot be read in isolation, but musl be interprete<l in conjunction with Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The petirioner failed to establish due diligence and good faith as required under Section 14 of the Limitation Act and thus requested tlre Court to dismiss the application.

6. Initialh,, suir uide O.S.No.2l of 2016 was filed for cancellation ol dccrce and Judgment dated 30.03.19S2 passed in O.S.No.2SB o1 1980. During the pendency of rhe suit, respondent No. I had ftled an appiication for rejection of plaint and it was allon ed. Aggrieved by the said Order, petitioner intended to pru.fe r an appeal with a delay of 12 days, but the delay petition u.as dismissed, against which petitioner prelerred civil Revisio, Petition and the same was also dismissecl as not maintainablc arrd thr: Court observed that petitioner ought t.o have filed sccor-rd appeal and thus petitioner requested this Court to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The delay was occurred because of prosecuting before the wrong forum. 7 . Respondcnt No.3 in his written submissions contended that as per the decision of the Hon,ble Apex Court in the case of Swad.eshi Cotton Mitts Co. Ltd., Vs,Government of u.p,) I ue reus 1+y scc:zt // ) ignorance of law is not an excuse for failing to take appropriate steps within limitation. He further stated that as per the decision of the Honble Apex Court in the case of Madha orao Naraganrao Patwardhan Vs.State oJ Bombag,2 it is for the petitioner to prove his bona fides and not for the respondents to prove any malahdes or misconduct on the part of the petitioner. B. The contention of the respondents is that it is lor the petitioner to plead that there is due diligence and he acted in good faith, but there was no bona fides on his part, as such he cannot claim the beneirt under Section 14 o[ the Limitation Act. He further stated that petitioner should not be guilty of the negligence, lapse or inaction, the application hled by the respondents for rejection of plaint was allowed, which amounts to dismissal of the suit and appeai was not maintainable, still petitioner filed the appeal with a delay of 12 days. When the delay petition was dismissed, he preferred Civil Revision Petition. The principles of good faith demands that the applicant must demonstrate that he acted wit]l honestlr, without negligence and with a genuine intent to pursue the correct legal remedy. Likewise, due diligence requires the application to show that he took all necessary and reasonable steps to prosecute the I I ' 1959 scR 56+ t 6 t prevlous proccedings promptltr and effectively. pe titioner herein challenged rhe dccrce of 19g2 vr.ith delay of34 years in the year 2076 and again filed first appeal with delay of I2 days without any sufficien t reason. After, he filed revision petition and again came up with tl-ris application to condone the delay of I32 days for liling the second appeal and this conduct demonstrates that the action undertaken by the petitioner was neither in good faith nor rvitb due diligence and this itself disentitles him from invoking the provisions o[ Section l4 of the Limitation Act. In the entire appli<:ation, he has not preaded or proved the main principles i.e.. .good faith', and ,,d_ue d-itigence,,. Therefore, the reasons statecl by him for condoning the delay are neither convincing nor satisfactory and accordingly the prescnt application is clismrssed with costs. 9 In the rcsult, the present application is dismissed with Consequently, the Second Appeal is rejected. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principle District and sessrons Judge Rang Reddy District at LB Nagar 2. The I additional Junior civil Judge cum Xll Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad at Rajendranagar 3. One CC to Sri T Sharath, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri Tarun G Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies DK/DL HIGH COURT DATED:0811112024 COMMON ORDER l.A.No.1 ot 2024 ln/and SA.No.277 of 2024 E S; A; - ,(1 (> is $t tii.2o2l i(' I DISMISSING THE l.A.No.1 of 2024 WITH COSTS AND REJECTING THE SECOND APPEAL 3 \9/tr I \ r