Royal Colony, Near Bala Garden Function Hall, Balapur, Saroor Nagar, Keshogiri, K v. Ranga Reddy Dist

For the Petitioner . Sri Rahul Kandharkar, Advocate For the Respondents: Joshi Mohan Sharma, Advocate The Court made the following: ORDER I HON'BLE SRI JI,STICE LAXMI NARAYANA AIISHET:TY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2333 OF 2024 ORDER: This C.R.P is frled assailing the order rlatecl O5.O7.2O2,+, passed by the Frincipal District .Judge, R.R District at L.B.Nagar in I.A.No.348 of 2024 in ASSR No.443 of 2O24 whereby whereunder the application filcd b], th., petitioner ':o condone the delay of 28 days in prc fi:rring the appeal lvas dismissed.

2. Hear,l Sri Vedula Srinivas, lear-ned Senic,r Cortnsei representing Sri K.Rahul, Iearned counsel for thc ,petitroner' and Sri Balakrishna, learned counsel representinlS Sri Joshr Mohan Sharma, learned counsel for respondent Nos.8,9 10, 12, 14 to 19

3. karned Senior counsel would submit that the petitioner filed suit in O.S.No.92 of 2Ol7 on th(: file ,rf lV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddl District, 2 LNA, J C.R.P.No.2333 of2024 L.B.Nagar against respondents to declare the petitioner as owner of suit schedule property and for recovery of possession of suit schedule property- However, the suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 01.11.2023. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred appeal vide ASSR.No.443 of 2024 along with application for condonation of delay of 28 days in preferring the appeal vide I.A.No.348 of 2024. However, the trial Court dismissed the said application only on the ground that the petitioner has failed to show reasonable cause for condonation of delay.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner is a senior citizen and he is suffering with old age ailments and because of his health condition, he could not take any steps challenging the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. He further submit that substantial rights in immovable property are involved, therefore, trial Court ought to have 3 ( R t ,\'o )3-j1,1 )0la adopted ,r liberal approach while adjudicating thr: application hled by the petitioner for condonatior-r of delal' and more so, the delay is only 28 days. He worrld further submit th at the petitioner is suffering wit ir cervical spondylosis and other health issues and uas taking treatment during and also after disposal of tht, suit. In support oi his contention, the petitioner h,rs placed prescriptiorr dated 04.12.2023, on record and th,.rs, prayed to allou,, thr: revision.

5. Per c ontra, learned counsel for respondr.nt would submit that petitioner has to assign proper and 1suffi<:ient reasons for condonation of delay in frling the appe,al and the delay cannot be condoned on mere asking, wittrout there being any material in support of contention of the petitloner that he was suffering wrth ill health arrd old age ailrnents. He woulcl further submit that the prescripticn drrted

04.12.2023 , placed on record along with tl-rr: present revision u,a s in fact not filed before the trial ( totrrt and 4 LNA- J C R P No 2333 of20)4 therefore, the triai Court has rightly dismissed the application and no grounds are made out to interfere with the impugned order and thus, prayed to dismiss the re\,,1s10n

6. Perusal of the impugned order would disclose that the trial Court has dismissed the application with an observation that in the application filed for condonation of delay, the petitioner has not provided details of his illness as well as at the time of disposal of suit he was chronically ill and hnally dismissed the application with an observation that petitioner has failed to shor,v any reasonable cause for condonation of delay in hiing the appea-l I

7. Admittedly, the petitioner herein is senior citizen and as per the prescription dated 04.12.2023, placed on record before this Court, the petitioner was suffering with cervical spondilosis and other ailments. The suit was filed for declaration of title in respect of suit schedule property and ) C R I'ito )lll oI2D4 as rightly submitted by the learned Senior C,rlrnsel for petitioner that substantial rights in immovable pr:.operty are involved and considering the age of the petitioner as well as his health condition and the delay in filing the appeal is only 28 days, the trial Court ought to have takerr a lenient view and considered the application filed by the petitioner for condonittion of delay

8. In N.Balakrishnan Vs. M.Krishnamurthgr, the Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard to _ the aspect of condonation of delay, held as hereunder: (altowecl) "9. ll is axiomatic that condonation of delag is l!, matter of d.iscretion of the Court. Section 5 of the Limitation Aci cloes not sag ltlat such discretion can be exercised onlg if tl.te delag is utthin a certain limit. Lenqth of delay is no matter, a,::ceptabilitg of the explanation is the onlA citerlon. Someltmes cleta11 of shortesf range tnaA be uncondonctble due lo want of acceptable explan ation, whereas [n certain olher cases delay o,r uery long range can be andoned as the explanation thereoJ is satisfactory. Once the Couri accepts the expla nation as sulfc[ent it is lhe resull of positiue exercise of disc:retion and I (1998) 7 scc r 23 6 LN). J CRPNo)tt3of2024 normallA the supeior Court should not disturb such frnding, much less in reuisional juisdiclion, unless the exercise of discretion uas on uhollA unterLable grounds or arbitrary or peruerse. But it is o different matter uhen the Jirst Courl refuses to condone the delag. In such cases, the supeior courT tuould be free to mnsider the cause shoutn for lhe detay afresh and it is open to such superior Court to come to its oun finding euen untrammeled bg the ancluston oJ the louer Courl. 10. The reoson for such- a different stance is lhus: The pimary function of a court is to adjudicote the dispute betueen the perlies and to aduance substantial justice. Time limit frxetl for approaching the Court in different situations is not because on the expiry of such time a bsd cause would transform into a good cause." I In the said judgment, the Hon'bie Supreme Court held that Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly; that the words "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also observed that it must be remembered that in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part of litigant concerneh. That aJone is not enough to 1 t.i'.t, J C R lr t\to 2313 ol'2024 turn down his plea and shut the door again st him at the threshold. If the explanaLion does not smack of ma,la fides or it is not put forth as part of a d;latory stratery, the C<.,urt must show utmost consideration tc the suitor.

10. Further, the Fion'ble Supreme Court in lyl.K.Prasqd Vs. P.Ar-umugamz, held that in construing Section 5i of the Limitation ,{ct, the Court has to keep in mind that tliscretion under the section has tc be exercised to advalce substaltial justice. The Court has a ciiscretion to condonr: or refuse to condone thre delay as is evident from the words "may be admitted" used in the Section 1 1 . In light of the above d iscussion, the petitioner has made out a case for condonation of delay of 28 days in preferring the appeal. Therefore, Civil Revision Petition deserverl to be allowed.

12. In the result, Civrl Revision Petition is allowt,:d, however, at the costs of Rs.5,00O (Rupe:es Five Thousand Rupees only) to be '? 2oot run scw ;t8to \ \ I t 8 C.R P No )333 of2021 payable to High Court legal Services Committee within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Pending misceilaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. To, //TRUE COPY// 1 2 3 4 The Principal District Jud ge, R.R. District at L.B.N a at One CC to Sri Rahul Kan dharkar, Advocate loPUCl One CC to SRI Joshi Mohan Sharma, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD C opres SD/- MOHD. ISMAIL EPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER I HIGH COURT DATED.01/08/2025 ORDER CRP No.2333 of 2024 / . L t (r t 16 sEP ,025 I REVISION IS ALI_OWED NO COSTS b \J \b\"