The High Court · 2025

4. Jatamoni Jangaiah, Died per Lrs R5 to 8 5. Jatamoni Srinivasulu, S/o, Jangaiah Aged about 50 years, Occ .Agriculture 6. Jatamoni Thirupathaiah, S/o Jangaiah Aged about 49 years, Occ.Agriculture 7. Jatamoni Anjaneyulu, S/o Jangaiah Aged about 48 years, Occ.Agriculture 8. Gorla Krishnamma, Wo Late Chennaiah aged.5 years, Occ.Agriculture R5 to 8 are Rl/o Tadoor Village and Mandal, Nagarkurn6ol District. - RESPONDENTS/Respondents/D3 to 5/Plantffs/Proposed R5 to R8 lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition uncler Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed ir support of the petition, the-High Court may be pleased to stay all further prcceedings in EP.No. 20 of 2023 on the file of 1.st Additional Junior Civil Judge Nagar Kurnool District. Counsel for the Petitioners : SRl. N BHUJANGA RAO Counsel for the Respondents : NONE APPEARED The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CryIL REVISION PETITI oN NO.2640 0F 2025 ORDER: This Civil Revision petition is filed seeking to set aside the order dated 19.06.2025 in I.A.No.3tO of 2024 in I.A.No.6O of 2023 in O.S.No.324 of 2O2O by the learned I Additional Junior Civil Court, Nagarkurnool (hereinafter referred to as ,.the trial Court,,)

2. Heard the submissions of Sri N. Bhujanga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners. None appeared on behalf of the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the pe[iLioners has submitted that the condone delay petition hled by [hem was dismissed by the learned Junior Civil Judge. without any proper reasoning. He further submitted that they did not have knowledge about the death of respondent No.4 and thus, a delay has occurred in bringing the legal representatives of respondent No.4 on record. Hence, they approached the trial Court with a petition to condone the delay of 461 days, but the trial Cour[ has lailed to consider their request and has dismissed the said petition. Aggrieved by the said orders, the present petition is filed. He therefore, prayed to set aside the orders. I i I I I I I i i -i 2 ETD,.] CRP No.2640 2025

4. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand has failed to appear, inspite of an opportunity being given.

6. Peru:;ect the record The rec:ord reveals that OS.No.324 of 2O2O u'as decreed ex parte on 15.08.2022. Subsequently, I.A.No.6O of 2023 '"r'as filed under Order-l), Rule- 13 seeking condonation of cielay of 2 1 8 days in filing the petition under Order-9, Rule- 1 3 to set aside the ex- parte decree. tn the said I.A.No.6O of 2023, the pctitioners wanted to bring in thr; legal representatives of respondent No.zl on record, but there uas a delay of 461 days and hence, they liled LA.No.310 of 2024 to condone the said delay in bringing thc lcgal representativ€,s on record. It is borne out by record that the suit is decreed ex-parte and the said suit was filed for Declaration ol Title and consequentially, to evict the defendants from the suit schedule pror,erty. Thus, the suit being a comprehensive suir, the matter needs proper adjudication on merits to do substantial justice to the parties. It is held in the Judgment dated 16.Oa.2022 that the deferrdants failed to contest the matter as they lailcd to file the vvrir,te r statement within the statutory period and hcnce, they were set 3x-parte.

7. It is lutther borne out by record that the defendants have preferred an application under Order-9, Rule-13 u.ith a delar. of I 7 3 ETD,J CRP No.2640 2025 216 days. During the said pendency of the application, the present petition is filed seeking a condonation of delay of 461 days in bringing legal representatives of respondent No.4 on record. The reasons assigned by the trial Court is that another suit i.e., O.S,No.13 of 2023 is filed by the pe[itioners for perpetual Injunction, disclosing the death of the decree holder herein. Further, they have hled a petition to implead the legal representatives on 18.03.2024 with a delay ot 72 days in the said suif vide O.S.No.13 of 2023. The reason assigncd for thc dismissal of the present application is that the defendants havc not shown any sufficient cause, they remained absent throughout the suit proceedings, inspite of service of summons and that they ffed a Memo under Ex.R2 stating that the defendant has died on

06.10.2023. Thus, the trial Court has held that they had knowledge about the death of the defendant, but failed to take steps in time.

8. A perusal of the counter hled by the respondents, shows that the defendants in the said suit OS.No. 13 of 2023 have hled a Memo in the Court on 01.1 1.2023 intimating about the death of respondent No.4 and thus, the petitioners herein have filed a petition to bring the legal representatives on record with a delay of 72 days on 1A.O3.2024. The present petition is filed on j I I i 4 DTD..] CRP No.2640 2025 O8.O4.202,,4, i.e., almost 20 days after filing of the said petirion. Ir is the ass,:rtion of respondents in this petition that the petitior-rers herein gained knowledge about the death of respondent No.4 on Ol.I7 .'2023 .nd that they filed the petition to brinq about rhe leg.rl represe nt€rtives on record on 18.03.2024 in O.S.No.13 of 2O23 which goc,s to show that the petitioner have filed a petition to bring the leg,al rcpresentatives on record in the pending snit i_e., O.S.No.73 of 2023 which was subsequentiy re_numberecl as O.S.No.24l ctf 2023 with a delay of 72 days. Ho,",r,ever, the presenr pe tition u,as filed with a gap of 2O days from the date of thc said petition. Ihe petitions fiied for condonation of delay should bc dealt with a liberal approach to end up in rendering substantial justice. To,l technical approach cannot be foliowecl in such cases. The reasons :;tated by the petitioners is that they are the resiclents of another village and that they were not aware of the death ol respondenr. I\1o.4. It is once again reiterated that. the suit is a comprehensive suit, deciding over the title and hence, it nceds proper adjudr cation on merits after affording opportunity to both the sides. IJn..ess the delay is condoned, the petitioners cannor be given an opportunity to contest the suit. The reasons stated b). thc petitioner is c'pincd to be a sufficient cause to condone the dela' of 461 days. 1 I i 5 ETD,J CRP No.2640 2025

9. In Collector, la.nd. Acqutsition o. Kdtijil, thc Apcx Court has held that jn ord_er to do substantial justice to the parties, the matter has to be disposed of on meits and that the expression 'sufficient cause' is adequatelg elastic to enable the Couft to apply the law in a meaningful manner uhich subserues the ends of justice. 10 In the light of the said decision and in vier.,,, of the above held discussion, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, setting aside the order dated 19.06.2025 in l.A.No.3 tO ol 2024 in I.A.No.6O of 2023 in O.S.No.32 4 of 2O2O by rhe learned I Additional Junior Civil Court, Nagarkurnool. Consequently, I.A.No.31O of 2024 stands allowed. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shali stand closed. l(nAt) 2 scc 7ot di. B. REKHA RANI SI TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER To

1. The I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool 2. One CC to SRl. N BHUJANGA RAO Advocate [OpUC]

3. Two CD Copiesqw HIGH COURT DATED:2610912025 1 t ORDER CRP.No.2640 of 2025 10 scr 2025 ALLOWING THE CRP 10 \o\ar