S/o. Late G. Pulla Reddy and another v. M. Ravinder Reddy

..APPELLANTS / RESPONDENTS /DEFENDANTS AND 1 M. Ravinder. Reddy, S/o. M. Chenna Kesava Reddy, Aged about.65.years, Occ. Business, R/o. H. No. 3-6-691 1 31 17 l2l 1, Avanthi Nagar, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. M. Puneeth Reddy, S/o. M. Ravinder Reddy, Aged about.45 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H. No.3-6-69161171211, Avanthi Nagar, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. M. Nikit Reddy, S/o. M, Ravinder Reddy,/Aged about 39.years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No.3-6-69161171211 , Avanthi Nagar, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. E. Venktateswarlu, S/o. E.V. Rama Lingam, Aged about.57 years, Occ. Business, R:/o. H.No.'1-7-0022, Ramnagar, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. .. Respondents/ Petitioners/ Plaintiffs 4 R E. Kavitha, D/o. E.V. Rama Lingam, Aged about.67 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No.1-7-0022. Ramnagar. Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 6 M/s. Mahalakshmi Constructions, Rep. by its Managing I Reddy, S/o M. Venkat Reddy, Aged aUolt +g yearJ. R-rr Residency. A.S. Raju Nagar, Kukatpatty, Hydeiabad. artner, M. Tirumala Flat No.50'1, Hasini 7 8 9 9qi.Vqrysl'? Kyasa, Dio. K. Srinivas, Aged about. 29 yea H.No. l8-5-115and 1 16, Laxminagar, Ramagundam,-G,: Pedapally District. Telangana. s, Occ. Doctor, R/o. avarikhani, Gourishetty Swapna. Wo. G. Maruthi Kiran, Aqed abou:. Housewife. R/o. H.No.3-7-496, Vavilapalty, Kaiimnagar t 42 years, Occ. istrict, Telangana. !yb-Registrar, SRO Saroornagar, Saroornagar Mandal. District. langa Reddy (Respondent Nos.4 to 9 are not necessary parties to thir; rpplication) ...RESPONDENTS/ Respc ldents/ Defendants lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 5 of Limitation Act praying thar I the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the ligh Court may be pleased to Condone the delay of 192 days in filing the app >al filed againsi the order dated 27.08.2024 passed in LA.No.724 ot 2023 in O S No. 921 ;f 2023 on the file of the lll Additional District & Sessions Judge, Rarrr a Reddy District at L.B.Nagar lA NO: 3 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 cPC praying that in the circ lmstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cour: may be pleased to suspend the order Dt. 27 -08.2024 passed by the lI Arr, itional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, until disp rsat of the CMA. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the cir: rmstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court rray be pleased to dispense with filing of certified copy of the order in 1.A.No.72.[ cI 2023 in O.S. No. 921 ol 2023 on the file of the lll Additionat District & Sess ons Judge, Ranga R-eddy District at L.B.Nagar and decree and also decree and c der copy, append-ix of evidence i.e., Ex.Pl to Ex.P27 and R1 to R13 . Counsel for the Appellants: SRt K.S. SUNEEL, REPRESEN'lt {G SRI. B VAMSHIDHAR REDDY Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.2 and 3 : SRI S.R. SANJEI V KUMAR The Court delivered the following Common Judgment: HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD. THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON'BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR r.A.NO.2 0F 2025 IN AND cNtA.NO.222 0F 2025 DATED: 02.12.2o25 Between : G. Cheuna Reddy, S/o. Late G. Pulla Reddy and another Versus ...Appellants M. Ravinder Reddy, S/o. lI[. Chenna Kesava Reddy and 8 others ... Respondents Mr. K.S. Suneel, Iearned r:orrnsel rcpreseltting Mr. B. Vamshidhar Redd_r,, learned counsel appearing for the appellan ts. Mr. S.R. Sanjeev Kumar, leanred counsel appeanrrg for tll!'respondent Nos.2 and 3. COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per I lon'bk: .Iustice lvlottslrutui I3hctttacharyal

1. The appellants, who lr,cre thc defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in a Suit Illed for declaration :rnd recovcr5' of posscssion of the Suit schedule property, hlecl I.A.No.2 ot 2O2-t sccking to condone the .:*Ee!- -- \-,-'J!:||t l \ .,) ctelay of 1()2 days in filing of lhe Appeal against hr: ordcr dated 27.Oa.2O2.+ in LA.No.724 of 2023 in O.S.No.92 I I ,2023 b1 the III Additional District and Sessions,Juclg: Ranga Recldy passed District at L. B. Nagar.

2. The rcspondent Nos. I to 3/ plaintiffs havc I lcd a Counter to the [A objccting to the delay being condoned 3. We have heard learned counse I appr: ring lrrr thr: appcllants rrnd the respondents. +- The Lrnly Paragraphs placed and relicd : r br. lcarncd r:ounscl appearing lor the appellants to explain tlr delav of 192 rla-1 s :rrc p:rr:rgraph Nos. 16 and 17 of tlre IA_ pr r rur.apl-r No. l6 states, inter alia, that the appellants have nothing :r do u,ith the Suit scheclule property and are only concern -, I r,r rth their l)rol)erty sirr-rate<l in open land bearing pkrt rlo.2D (part) irdmeasurinll 12t)0 Sq. yds. out of 2OO0 Sq. \ I ;, in sun,cv Nos.53 and 54 situated at Mansoorabact Village Saroornagar I?evenue M:indal, under GHMC LB Nagar Circle, I :rng:r Rcdcll. Il istric t. .5. Paragraph No. 16 also states that thc a1 r1 t.llant No. 1 entcred illto a Partition Deed with thc rcsponclerrl ,los.4 and 5 frrr d ividing the said property and the same \ ras n( ,t rcceived by thc Su b-l?egistrar, Saroornagar. J

6. Paragraph No.l6 also refers to Writ petition No.96 of 2025 filed by the appellants seeking a direction on the Sub_ Registrar to receive, register and release the partition Deed and by order dated 08.01.2025 passed in the said Writ petition, the Sub-Registrar was directed to follow a Memo d,ated. 12.Og.2O24 and pass reasoned orders after giving a fair opportunity of hearing to all the necessary parties. 7. Paragraph No.17 states, tnter alia, that thc Sub_Registrar received the Partition Deed pursuant to the ordcr of the High Court but refused to registcr the same as the property had been included in the prohibited list of properties by virtue o[ the order dated 27.O8.2O24. The appellants hence filed an Appeal before the District Registrar from the order of refusal dated 25.O2.2025 and the same was disposed of by order dated 16.04.2025 which upheld the refusal order. The appellants thereafter preferred a Writ Petition before the High Court which is presently pending consideration.

8. Neither Paragraph No. 16 nor paragraph No.17 state any explanation or give any reason lor the delay of 192 days in filing ol the CMA.

9. The IA, in totality, falls miserabty short of the basic requirement undbr section 5 of The Limitation Act, 1963. The ./ t ) 4 appellants have failed to provide any cause, let a r ne 'sufhcient cause', for explaining the delay of 192 days, lvhict' r'ould permit the Court to exercise its discretion as to whetl cr 1-he delay should be condoned or the prayer for condonati' n should be refused.

10. The IA is simply a narration of the merits c I the dispute bctrveen the parLics which cannot be const uecl as an apptication for condonation of delay as conter-r rlated undcr sccrion 5 of lhe lq63 Act. 1 L. I.A.No.2 of 2025 is accordingly dismissed' ( ()nsequenllv, CMA.No.222 of 20'25 stands dismissed. 12. All connected applications are dismissed l ner<: shall be no order as to cost s. SI) .I NAGA LAKSHMI IOINT REGISTRAC / / //TRUE COPY// I iECTION OFFICER To ., IEi':fl1''ll?,?fi #:ff::,i;';ons Judse, Ransa Redd', )istrict at

2. One CC to SRl. B. VAMS 3. Two CD CoDres 4. One CC to Sri S.R.Sanjeev Kumar Advocate (OpUC) }HIDHAR REDDY, Advocate [Ot,l rCJ 8+ kul/psl I HIGH COURT DATEDi02l12l2O25 i COMMO\ JTIDG}IENT t.A. NO. 2 0F 2025 IN/AND CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO:222 OF 2OZs .:,. i nE s r :-- ,, ; ir, 12 tlc ru5 J ct) DISMTSSINC THE CMA AND I.A. NO. 2 OF 2025 AND CMA i!