The High Court · 2025

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N'TUKARAMJI PETITION NO :21 920F 20 25 IL REvlsloN ffi i?liltiii*ll"**ft if #iu#j$j:;'x* the Order dated on the file of the at Sircilla. Between: iel:',l,i.i,::a,TE:il*',?"g"".'llllllftlJ ,5?"';$?i$"tHi'fir'li3"s'3ui3 ..'Petitioner/Petitioner/Plai AND =-ltl #I3 iX;iJi; [i, 1""x,\fl :3',11,t? if'fl::ij {x' Jfi fi l"s?"!fi lE',', llH [i *' ...RespondenURespondenUDefendant IA NOi2OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC qrgying'th?l'.in in the affidavit fited in supiort of the petition' the High Suspend Order dated os-tiZ-ZOZS passed in l A.No'13 #i5";; Ir,"-ir" ot eriniipar Junior civil-Judse' at 'ol#i i,,]iii,;gii"po'ur or the above c R'P' Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V'V'RAMANA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: SRI R'NAGARJUNA REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER the circumstances stated Court may be Pleased to- 2 of 2020 in O.S'No 35 ot Sircilla. Raianna Sircilla THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI ctVIL REvtsroN PETITroN No -21920 F2025 ORDER: This Civil Revision petition is filed 05.02.2025 passed in t.A.No.132 of 2020 Junior Civil Judge, at Sirc learned principal aggrieved by the order dated in O.S.No.3S of 2015 by the illa, Rajanna Sircilla District.

2. Heard Mr.V,.V.Ramana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Nagarjuna Rteddy, Iearned counsel for the respondent. 3. The petitioner/ptaintiff instituted O.S. No. 35 of 2015 seeking (i) a decraration of titre' (ii) recovery of possession, and (iii) mesne profits at the rate of Rs' 2'0r10l- per annum from the date of firing of the suit untir delivery of possession of land bearing Survey No. 2.1 7, admeasuring Ac. 02.00 guntas, situated within the boundaries of Kolanur Village, Konaraopet Mandal. The suit, however, was dismissed for non_ prosecution on 1 6. 1:2.2O 1 6. 4' subsequenfly, the petitioner/praintiff fired r.A. No. 132 of 2020, seeking condonation of deray of g3 days in firing a petition under order lX Rure g of the codr-' of civir procedure (cpc) for restoration of the suit. on 05'02'2025, the triar court, after considering the submissions, dismiSsed the said iapplication. The Court observed that atthoush the petittOner attributed his absence to ill-health' no rnedical documents or evidence were procluced to substantiate this claim' Consequently' the 2 \ \ trial Court held that the explanation offered was not a valid or sufficient cause for the delay and accordingly rejected the petition' Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has preferred the present Civil Revision Petition'

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that following the dismissal of the suit' the petitioner had' on 2o'O4'2O17' filed the restoration petition accompanied by an application for condonation of delay. lt is contended that the petitioner's absence on the date of dismissal was due to his genuine ill-health' Moreover' the suit at that stage was listed for framing of issues' a stage at which the personal presence of the plaintiff was not essential. lt is further argued that the delay in prosecuting the matter effectively deprived the petitioner of an opportunity to pursue his claim on merits' Counsel' therefore' prays for interference by this court, relying upon the judgment of the Hon',ble Supreme Court in S- Ganesh Raiu & Another v' Narasamma & Others (2013) 11 SCC 3411, wherein it was held that a liberal approach must be adopted in condonation of delay applications in order to advance Substantial justice, unless mala fides in approaching the Court belatedly are clearlY demonstrated

6. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondents supports the orderofthetrialCourt,submittingthattheapplicationwasrightly dismissed on merits. lt is argued that the reasons advanced for condonation were neither substantiated by documentary evidence nor ',.s{own to be bona fide. ln the absence of credible material explainingahg 3 delay' the imprugned order wa*ants no interference- counser further asserts that the respondents have already purchased the subject property and are in possession thereof. Hence, the petitioner has no justifiable ground for seeking restoration of the suit. 7. I have perused the material on record.

8. The reason assigned by the petitioner for the delay in filing the restoration petition is that he had faren ir. on 16-12.2016, the date on which the matter was posted, the petitioner was unabre to attend the proceedings due to his ill_health, and consequenfly, the suit was dismissed for non-prosecution' The sore ground urged by the petitioner for both his absence on the date of dismissar and the deray in firing the restoration petition is his iltness. 9' rt is pertinerrt to note that the revision petitioner, being the originar plaintiff' had institrrted the suit and there is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner,s absence on 16.12.2016, or the delay in filing the restoration petition, was deriberate or intended to prejudice the interests of the respondents'/defendants. rn this view of the matter, the expranation offered that his i'-hearth prevented him from prosecuting the case appears to be bona fide and acceptable. 10' The triar court decrined to condone the deray sorery on the ground that no medical records had been produced, Such a rigid approach, in the opinion of this Court, is unduly harsh. While contemporaneous \ \ 4 medical evidence would have strQngthened the petitioner's case' its absence by itself cannot conclusively discredit the genuineness of the petitioner's explanation' particularly when no mala fides have been attributed. Moreover, in the present revision' the petitioner has produced certain documents evidencing his health condition' 11 . Considering the circumstances' as well as the settled principle that technicalities should not override the cause of substantial justice' it would be appropriate to afford the petitioner one more opportunity to prosecute his claim on merits' Denial of such an opportunity would amount to shutting the doors of justice on a litigant who has shown sufficient cause for the delaY' 12. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed by setting aside the order dated 05'02'2025' the l'A'No'132 of 2OZOin O S'No'35 of 2015 by the leamed Principal Junior Civil Judge' at Sircilla' Raianna Sircilla District stands allowed' ln consequence' the trial Court is directed to entertain the petition filed under Order lX Rule 9 CPC for restoration of the suit and to dispose of the same expeditiousry, in accordance with law. No order as to costs' Miscellaneous Petitions, Pendi ng if anY, shall stand closed. d/- A.V.S.PRASAD PUTY REGISTRAR /TTRUE COPY// to'',,n " P ri nci pa I J u n io r fl:i:'ffi i"[|'g[ i"1tti^: 2' One CC to Sri V'V'Ri 6 6|iI & i; il R N's;;;;; RJoY' na'o"'te roPUCr 4. Two CD CoPies NVB/kam ECTION OFFICER at Sircilla. HIGH COURT DATED:22 tOBtzO2S ORDER CRP.No.2192 ot 2O2i /. .,:.. :. 1 0 [[T 2025 'r; i ,i , ,;:. ALLOWING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION

6.06"^ \qr - 6ffit^o