The High Court · 2025

1. Badavath Kevudia, (died per LR's who are defendants nos.2 to 5) 2 Badavath Redya, S/o- Kevudia, Age. 44 years, Occ: Agrrculture, 3. Badavath Kushya, S/o. Kevudia, Age. 42 years, Occ: Agriculture, 4. Badavath Srinivas, S/o. Kevudia, Age: 40 years, Occ: Agriculture, 5. Badavath Ravi, S/o. Kevudia, Age: 36 years, Occ. Agriculture, All are R/o Basavaguda Village, Mankhal Grampanchayat, [t/ahehswaram Mandal, R.R.Dist

6. Sri lnderpal Hora, S/o. Tilakraj Hora, Age: 45 years, Occ: Business R/o 5-9- 22196, Adarshnagar Colony, New MLA trs., Hyderabad,

7. Sri Abhish Kumar, S/o. Pannalal, Age: 49 years, Occ. Business, R/o Mithilanagar Colony, Road No. 12, Hyderabad. , n\I ...:| . ', r-, {. I I I l I h I i I I I I E7 8 Sri Raj Kabra. S/o. Vrswamberlal Kabra, Age.47 years, Occ. Business, R/o 5- 1 0-1 89, Banlarahills, Hyderabad. ...Respondents lA NO: f OF 2019 Between:

1. Pathlavath Laxmi, Wo Devsrngh, Age: 37 years, Occ: Housewrfe R/o Ramnutha Tharrda village, Amangal Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District.

2. Sabavath Lalitha, W/o. Sabavath Taria, Age: 35 years, Occ: Housewrfe, R/o Basavaguda Thanda. Mahankal Village, IVlaheshwaram IVIandal, R. R. Dist ...Appella nts AND

1. Badavath Kevrrdia, (died per LR's who are defendants nos.2 to 5) 2. Badavath Redya. S/o Kevudia, Age: 44 years, Occ: Agriculture, 3. Badavath Kushya, S/o Kevudia, Age.42 years, Occ: Agriculture, 4 Badavath Srinrvas. S/o Kevudia, Age: 40 years, Occ. Agrrculture, 5. Badavath Ravr S/o. Kevudia, Age.36 years, Occ: Agric:ulture, All are R/o Basavaguda Village, Mankhal Grampanchayat, Mahehswaram lVlandal, R. R Drst

6. Srr lnderpal Hora, S/o Tilakraj Hora, Age: 45 years, Occ: Business R/o 5-9- 22196, Adarshnagar Colony, New I\/ LA trs-, Hyderabad.

7. Sri Abhish Kumar, S/o Pannalal, Age: 49 years, Occ. Business, R/o lVlithilanagar Colony, Road No 12, Hyderabad.

8. Sri Raj Kabra, S/o. Viswamberlal Kabra, Age: 47 yearc, ()cc. Business, R/o 5- '1 0-'l 89, Banjarahills. Hyderabad. ...Respondents Petition under Section 5 of Limitation Act praying thal in the circumstances stated rn the affidavit frled in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 2484 days in filing the appeal against the Judgment dated.'1 1-10-2012 in O.S.No.187 of 2012 on thc. file of lll Additional Drstrict Judge, Ranga Reddy Drstrict. lA NO: 2 OF 2019 Petition under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of C.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to restrain the respondents/defendant nos.6 to 8 from alienating or creating any document by way of gift deed, sal{3 deed or any other deed on the name of third parties pending disposal of main iappeal in respect of ;t'$, ot'i;'7 land adm Ac.10.00 gts in sy.nos.760, 761 . 766, 767 of Mahankali Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTIES All that agricultural land properties admeasuring Ac. 10.00 gts in Sy.No 760,761,766 and 767 situated at mahankal Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and bounded by: North : Cart Track Way South : Land of Ram Reddy East . Part of Sy.Nos.760 and 76'1 West : Part of Sy.Nos .766 and 767 Counsel for the Appellants: Sri Padala Pravin Kumar Counsel for the Respondents No.7 & 8: M/s. Unnam Law Firm The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT j ,.'1r g.t1''' I ! *=7 THT] HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO I.A.No.l of 2019 IN/ANI) APPEAL SUIT No.611 of 2019 COMMON JUDGMENT: /t,,, H,'u bL.\n.ttrtice P.SAM KOSHY) I.A.No. I of 2019 is an application filed by the petitioner/appellants seeking condonation of delay of 2484 days in the tiling of the instant appeal

2. The petition eriappellants are the plaintiffs rrL the suit. The ra' 'n petitioner/appellants had filed a suit lor partition and separate possession of the plaint schedule property and claiming one share to ea.ch of the plaintiffs in the said properly.

3. The suit i.e.. O.S.No.l87 of 2007 got dismissed'"'ide judgment and decree, dated I1.10.2012. Though the judgment was passed on 11.10.2012, the instant appeal has been filed only on 04.11 .2019 along u,ith the condone delay petition, seeking condonation of 2484 number of days in the filing of the appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has raised the grouLnd of poverty and ill-health ofthe plaintiffs and on the ground ofthe appellants having left the State for want of livelihood, to be the reason for the delay to have occurred. t ,:'-?. t '?!l.;."' ' ).. 2 5. However, perusal of the contents of the condone delay petition would clearly establish that the suit was dismissed after hearing all the parties to the suit including the plaintiffs which would establish that till the suit was decided, the plaintiffs were very much staying in close proximity. Further, the coirdone delay petition would also show that infact the plaintiffs were present in Hyderabad itself during the said period, as would be evident from paragraph No.2 ofthe condone delay petition.

6. In the given factual backdrop, it is very difficult to accept the grounds raised by the appellants seeking condonation of delay. It is hard to accept .i' iJ that having filed a suit for partition; the parties would not call up their respective counsel ascertaining the outcome ofthe suit.

7. The delay of 2484 days i.e, roughly seven years of time, is highly inordinate and to make things worst for the appellants, the reasons assigned also do not seem to be plausible, satisfactory or justified explanation having being provided for the huge delay that has occurred in the filing of the First Appeal.

8. It is by now a well settled proposition of law that applications for condonation of delay should not be accepted in a mechanical manner as a matter of routine. The parties seeking condonation of delay has to give satisfactory and plausible explanation, justiffing the delay that has ,nT}. tf :, f &*6t 3 occurred. The retief of equity or the discretionary po\r'ers to be exercised particularly when it comes to condone detay petition, the same cannot be extended to the indolent person who sleeps over his right, without any justifiable cause or feasons and permits things to settled down without pursuing their clairn or rights effectively.

9. In the absence of any justifiable grounds being reflected in the condone delay petition, we are of the considered opinion that no strong case for allowing t.A.No.1 of 2019 has been made out. Accc'rdingly, the same deserves to be and is accordingly rejected.

10. I.A.No.1 -of 2019 filed by the petitioneriapptllants seeking for condonation of delay of 2484 days stands rejected. As a consequence, the A.S.No.611 of 2019 also stands dismissed. As a sequel. miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs. Sd/- M. RAMANA KRISHNA UTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The lll Additional District Judge, (F.T.C) Ranga Reddy District at LB.Nagar (with records, if any)

2. One CC to Sri Padala Pravin Kumar, Advocate [OPUC;] 3. One CC to Mis Unnam Law Firm, Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CD Copies kanVgh o, ''h.r:f ' I I *;ris HIGH COURT DATED:21 10112025 I COMMON JUDGMENT l.A.No.1 of 2019 IN/AND AS.No.611 of 2019 -?:, t1E ST4Ie or' ( 10 APn ilm o.\ t f [.s patcv\ THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED l.A.No.1 of 2019 STANDS REJECTED \e ,n}. ,,ti'-:':li