Patil (deadf by LRs. vs Delay defeats equity. The court helps those who are vigiialt

NERS/PLAINTIFFS/PET!TION E RS 1 /1.nrxadi Begum, Wo Abdul Azeez, ag€d 203/9. Uppuguda, Hyderabad,TS. 2. Hameeda Begum, Wo Abdul Azeez,ag 1 -203/9, Uppuguda, Hyderabad,TS. 3 Bilqis Begum, Wo Abdul hag, aged. 47 Post. Beside Nice Hotel, Hyderabad,TS. 4 Abdu! Samad, S/o Abdul Raheem, aged Vattepally, Hyderabad,TS. 5 lVl,rnawar Begum. Wo Md Jahangeer, ag 96/311, Vattepally 2 years,No.l and 2 ate Rlc i 8- i - . 52 years, No.1 and 2 are Rio. 18- ars, 1 9-3-294199741, Y2 lrei,-,alli 1 years, R/o.H No. 9-3-305/'1414 . 67 years, R/o H.No.. 3- l5- 5 Abdul Azmeri. Sio late Abdul Azeez, 1-203/39. Krishna Reddy Nagar, Kandika 33 years, Occ. Business R/o 18- gate, Uppuguda. Hyderahat r!-rattr!!1rq/

7. Abdul Kareem @ Nawab, S/o late Abdul Azeez, aged. 3.1 years, Occ. Private Employee, R/o 18-1-203/39, Krishna Reddy Nagar, KandikaI gatem Uppuguda, Hyderabad

8. Abdul lsmail agora, s/o late abdul Azeez, aged- 29 years, Occ. Prirrate Employee, R/o 1B-1-203/39, Krishna Reddy Nagarm Kandijak gate, Uppuguda, Hyderabad,

9. Bibi, S/o late Abdul Azeez, aged .27 years, Occ. Business, R/o 1B-1-203/39, Krishna Reddy Nagar, Kandikal Gate, Uppuguda, Hyderabad. (added as per order dated. 29-11-2011, passed in IA No. of2011) ...RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 order for substitute service by way of public notice in any local News paper (Telugu) in Hyderabad district regions in the above CRP No. 2570 of 2023 against the Respondents i.e. R-1 , R-2, R-4, R-6, R-7 & R-8. Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI BETHMNKATESWARLU Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NJARAYANA ALISHETTY cIvIL REVISION PETITION t{O.257O OF 2023 ORDER: This Civil Rcvision I']etition is fi ed assailing the order dated

73.06.2023 in t.A.No.221 of 2021 in O No.60 of 2014 Passed bY the Senior Civil Judgc at Shaclnagar

2. Heard Sri llcthi Vcnkateshwarlu, earncd counscl for Petitioners and Sri Shaik Khaia Pasha, learned cou scl appcarir-rg [or resPondent Nos.2 to 5 and 9

3. The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs and the resPondents herein are the clt:fcndants bcfore thc trial Court' [;or convenience' hereinaftcr tht: Partic's art' rcfcrrcci to as lhcy are arrayccl in the suit' 4 Brief facts rclevant for acljudicaticin of the Present Civil Revision Petition at'e that l.rlair.rtif fs filed r partition and deliverv oI POSSeSSIOII r-('\irc('t tlI tlrt' larltl l casu rit-tg i" At's. 12.12 guntas tn la1;c anrl Acs.l 1.17 Suntas in Sy'No'365 of Keshampet vitlage; that ot.tc' latt- Ahdul juttx:'' has got two wives' i'e ' Jainabbi is the first tt'ift'arrtl lJur.rharr ln'[ is th('scconcl rvifc' [t is avcrrcd that plairrtiffs arc t e legal heirs o[ Iate Khaja Bee, 5. who is the daughter of Iluran llec, w'[ o is the secotrcl rvi fe of Abclu I Karccm; Ihat Abtlr-rl Ralrt't't, is tlrt' sorh of first wi[c oI lainablri; ) name of the Abclul Rar-rcem was recorded in art the rcvenue records as exclusive owr.rcr. .[ suit la'ds; that during the lifc tirne of Abdul Raheem' he declared r Iiba orally i. favour of his step sister Burhan Bee and her daughter rate Khaja [3ee to gi'e harf share in the suit rands and subsequently, througlr written c{ocurnent dated 15.02.1gg5 assured and agreed to give half share in thc suit lands as per I Iiba made by the original pattadar Abdul f(ahce,r; that thc c{efenclants usetl to pay food grains to thc p[5i111;p6, whcncver de.randed by getting the suit Iands cultivate throug;h others; that on account of increasc i. rates of lands, the defendants arc proposin5,, to sc the suit lands. I{ence, the suit. 6. It is further averred that initiallv, the plaintiffs l,iled a suit in O.S.No.101 of 2007 on the tilc oi Ac{cll. Senior Civil Judge at Mahabubnagar for partition ol tirc. suit lanc{s; that clc,l.cndants entered appearance anc'r fircd writtcrr stdtl,lc.u trrat after irami.g of issues, trial commenced and [,.W.1 rvas exarnir_rccl in chief ancl Exs.A1 to A7 were marked ancl mattcr was acl.jourrrc,cl to 07.11.2013 ior his cross_ examinaLion and thereaftcr, trre rna tter was adjou rnecl for furtrrer evidence; that o. admi'ristrati'c 11rou.,.ls, said suit l'as transferred to the court of funior (-ivil Juc{11c at shaclrragar on 11.0{.201{ and the suit was renumbercd as O.S_ No_60 of 20 l.l. J

7. It is further averrcd that during thtl pcndcncy o[ tlre suit, plaintiff No.2 died on 07.02.2075 and sincc thcre are rro rnalc persons in their family, they could no[ pros€]cute the sui and thcrca[ter, plaintiff No.1 also died on 09.03.2015; that during Oc ober, 2027, tl-rrough some of their relatives, the plaintiffs have [earut t at about pendency of the suit before the courU that immediatel\,, the apploached the Court and enquired in the section and they w'erc inf Drmccl that tl're above suit was dismissed for default on 14.09.2015 itself I t is a vcrrccl tha t plaintiffs are not aware of the above said suit or its d rnissal on 14.09.2015 and nor they were informed by the Advocate on rccorcl and tlrat immediately, after knowing thc dismissal o[ thc suit fo clefault, they approached the t Court by filing an application lirle [.A.No 221 of 2021 for condonation of 2237 days in fiting thc applrt.ation lor rc' tor;r tion ol- thc su it. The trial Court vide ordcr datccl 13.06.2023, Lti {n rissr.cJ ihc sa id application Aggrieved thereby, the prcscnt [lcvision ctitiorr is f ilccl t

8. Learned counsel for tl-re pctiLiortcrs Pla ir-r ti f [s contended that due V to the death of thc plaintiff Nos.l ar.rcl 2.r c1 sincc no male persons were l. there in the family of the platurti[fs, thi-. r:oulc1 not approach the trial Court and even their couttsel dicl rrot irtl' rrn about disrnissal of the suit for default and immcdiately, after knor'r' n1i thc samc', thcy approached the court by filing restoration Pe'titior-r I krrrg rv itl-r a n application for 4 condonation of rlelay by explairring the valid reasons for delay of 2237 days howevcr, thc trial (burt without consiclc,ring the same, erroneously dismissed the saicl application on thc ground that huge delay cannot be condoned simply on saying that petitioners had no knowledge ab.ut the pcnding, suit, w,hich is contrar' to w,ell settled principles of law taid down by the l{on,ble Apex Couri. and as such, the findings of the trial Court are not sustainable in the eye of law. He further submittcd that a rcnic'nt vicw rnay be taken r.r.rrire adiudicating the delay applicatiory since tl.re rights of pctitioncrs/ ptaintiffs in immovable property would be affected if the delay is .ot condoned and finally, prayed to allow thc rcvision petition.

9. Learned counsel for respondents/ cle fcnclan ts hatl contenclccl that petitioners lilcd the restoratio, pctitio. arong rr ith concl0.ation application with a^ ab.ormal dcla-v of 2237 clav s and that the application filccl by the petitioners is devoici ol-ap1, 11111.11 alci no proper reasons are assip,ned for condonation of huge clelav. in fiting the application ancl the triar Court has rightlv crisrnissecl I.,,\,No.221 of 202r and prayed to clisr-niss the rc.vision petitiorr. iO. With regard to the issue o[ condonation o[ dcla1,. ir is trite to refer to the judgment of the llon,blc Apex Court rn Basawaraj and :r.+.G!fq another v. Special Land Acquisition bfficerr, wherein it is held as _) under: "l l. The expression -sufficrcnt caus! interpretation to ensurc rhal substan so long as negligence, inaclion or lttr inputed to the partA concented, whel has been fumished, can be decided case and no straitjacket formula is Shyamtal I(2002) I SCC 535 : AIR 2( Soov. Gobardlan Sao [(2O02) 3 SCC I :" should be given a liberal Iial justice is done, but only pk of bona fides cannot be [her or not sufficient carrse [n the facts of a particular possible. (Yide Madanlal v. IOZ SC tOO; and Ram Nath 195 :AIR 2002 SC I2011 .)

12. It is a settled legal proposition ithat law of limitation may t has ro be applied with all harshly affect a particular part_v but its rigour when the statute so prescri s. The court has no power uitable grounds. "A result to extend the pe riod of [imitation on ever an evil. A court has no flowing from a statutory provision is power to ignore that provision to lieve what it considers a he statutory provision may distress resulting from its operatron." cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the iving [ull effect to the same court has no choice but to enforce rt The legal maxim dura lex sed lex w ch means 'the law is hard but it is the law", stands atrracted n such a situation. lt has enience is not" a decisive consistently been held that, "rncon factor to be considered while interpret ng a statu te. ,oo( marised to the effect that 15. The taw on the rssue can be stt he court be)ond limitation, where a case has been presented rr) urt as to \a'hat was the the applicant has to explain thc "sufficient cause" which means an a cquate and enough reason which prevented him to approach th court tlithin limitation. [n case a party is found to b€ neglrgent. or lor r!,ant of bona fide on his part in the facts and circumst:rn es oI the case, or found to have not acted diligentll'or remarned inactile there cannot be a justified ground to condone the (lcla\ No court could be justilied b\ rmposrng anv condition in condoning such an inordinate <le.la whatsoever. The application is to decided onl! within the parameters laid down b-y this Court i regard to the condonation of delay. In case there rvas no sufllcie t cause to prcvent a Iitigant to approach the court on time conclohing the dela1, rvithout any \\ hatsoet er, amounts to justification, putting an-\' condition tatuton provisions and it passing an order in violation o[ the tantamounts to showing utter disrega d to the legislature. " 1 1 In Postmaster General and ot ers vs. Living Media India Limited and anotherr, Hon'ble Apex C$urt having considered catena of decisions, including Pundlik Jala Patil (deadf by LRs. Vs. ' zora (ra) scc ar ' (zorz) r scc sog Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project and another3, held as 6 hereunder: - "17...-..- The evidence on record suggests neglect o[ its own right for long time in preferring appeals. The court cannot enquire into belated ald stale claims on the ground of equity' Delay defeats equity. The court helps those who are vigiialt and "do not slumber over their rights". L2. [n Government of , Maharashtra (Water Resources Departmentl rep. by Executive Engineer vs' Borse Brothers Engineers arld Contractors Private Limitedr, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "63. ...... [n a ht case in which a party has otherwise acted born fide and not in a negligent manner, a short detay beyond such period can. in the discriti,on of the court, be condoned, aln'a1 s bearing in mind that the other side of the Picture is that the opposrtc part\ ma) have acquired both in equity and justice, what may noN be lost b]- the first party's inaction, negligence or Laches."

13. Perusal of the record would discl0se that the srtit $as dismissed for default on 14.O9.2O 15, but the petitioners dicl not Lake steps immediately to restore the suit, which clearly indicate that petitioners rverc not diligent in prosecuting the suit. Admittedtl , petitioners filed application for restoration of the suit along u"ith zrpplication under section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay- ot 2)i\7 da1's in filing restoration petition. Further, petitioners failed to shou' cogent and ptausible reasons for condoning inordinate dela5' ol 2237 da-'"'s As rightly observed by the trial Court in the impugned ordcr, the law assists only those who are vigilant and not those rvho sleep over their '{2008) 17 SC 448 ' (zozr) o scc aeo 7 rights and the Court presumes that ery party is aware of law and hence, a party cannot claim ignorance o[ la'*, as a defence to escape liability.

14. In view of the above discussion a nd legal position, this Court is ot the considered opinion that the rea] sons oflcrcd by the petitioners for condonation of inordinate delay doe g not inspire the conlidence of this Court since no plausible explana on has been offe red for huge I + inordinate delay of 2237 days in filin application and no sufficient cause has been shorvn for such delav and hence, the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed.

15. In the result, the Civil Revisio Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

16. Pendingmiscellaneous applicatio s if any shall stand closed //TRUE COP il i SD/- K. BHAVAN! SWAMY S ISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, One CC to SRI BETHI VENKATESWAR U Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies 1 J SS/gh V( HIGH COURT DATED:0910612025 ORDER CRP.No.2570 of 2023 q J o () Si4I 3o( 21 NJE 26 * o, 11t "r ' a' : =':=:--:?' NiSMISSING THE C.R.P. WITHOUT COSTS .., --,',('e''; t-at -,:1r,, _--..: -.