The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cin;umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court m:,ry be pleased to stay the Preliminary Decree Dt. 21-7-2014 in O.S.No.248 o't 2012 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 BETWEEN: K.Hanumanthu Reddy, S/o Late Pedda Malla Reddy, Ag,:. 64years, Occ. Agriculture and Pensioner, r/o Perkiveedu village, Koilko tda Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. ...Petitioner/Respondent No.1 '' 't. K.Jaipal Reddy (DIED), as per LRs AND

2. Kotam Shailaja, W/o. Late K. Jaipal Reddy, Age 57 years, Occ: Housewife, FYo. Perkiveedu Village, Koilkonda Mandal, Mahabubnag ar District.

3. Kotam Preethi Sudha, D/o. Late K. Jaipal Reddy, Age 27 years, Occ Household, R/o. Perkiveedu Village, Koilkonda l,la,rdal, Mahabubnagar District.

4. Kottam Sai Vardhan Reddy, S/o. K. Jaipal Reddy, Age 26 years, Fi/o. Perkiveedu Village, Koilkonda Mandal, Mahabubnagar D strict. ... Respondent N os.1 to 4/Petitioners

5. K.Venkatram Reddy, s/o Late Pedda Malla Reddy, Age. t)4years, Occ. Agriculture and Pensioner, r/o Perkiveedu village, Koilkorrda Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. ...Respondent No.S/Respondent No.2 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cirr umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the ex-parte interim stay order dated 25-09-2023 in C.ll.P No 3082 of 2019 and dismiss the C.R.P No 3082 ol 2019 with exemplary costs. Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri K Venkatesh Gupta Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Sri Satya Sadhan representing Sri V Mallik Counsel forthe Respondent No.2 : ___ The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE DT. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3082 of 2019 ORDER: .fhisCivilRevisionPetitionisfiledbythepetitionerdefendantNo.2 aggrievedbytheorderdated15'07.2019passedinI.A.No.225of2018in O.S.No.248 of 2012 by the leamed Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar, Mahabubnagar District for dismissing the petition tiled by him uncler Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of i384 days in setting aside the ex-parte decree passed against him dated 2l '07 '2014 '

2. The petitioner died during the pendency of the revision petition and his legal representatives w'cre brought on record as petitioners 2 to 4'

3. l-hc lacts of rhe case in brief are that the rcspondent No.1 plaintiff tiled o.S.No.248 of 2012 for partition of the suit schedule land into three equal shares and for allotment of onethird share to him. The petitioner and respondents rvere real brothers. Summons were served on defendants 1 and 2 in the said suit. The defendants filed vakalat but not filed wiitten statement, as such they were set ex-parte. Subsequently, the suit was dismissed for default andtheSamewasrestoredon26.02.2014byallowingI.A.No.659of2013. Thereaftcr the petiiioner defendant No.2 did not participate in the suit. As - 2 Dr.GRR, J crp_30E2 2019 such, an ex-parte decree was passed on 21.07 .2014. The respondent No.1 plaintiff filed I.A.Nos.612 and 673 of 2015 for appointmc rt of Commissioner and passing of final decree. The petitioner fiied an applicat ion for setting aside the ex-parte declec and as there u,as a delay of 1384 days I led a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the said dclay. 'lhe said petition was dismissed by the trial court and aggrieved by the said disnrissal, the petitioner preferred this rev ision.

4. Heard Sri K.Venkatcsh Gupta, lcarned counsel for the petilioner and Sri Satya Sadhan, leamed counsel representing Sri S.V.Ma lik, leamed counsel for the respondent No. I - plaintiff on rccord.

5. Leamed counsel lor the petitioner submitted that thr revision petitioner was a poor agriculturist. He. was not aware of the legal prc.ceedings. No fresh nolice was ordered to the revision petilioner in the petition o restore the suit to its filc. The delay in not contesting thc suil by filing writte I statement and not filing the application within the stipulated period of time u,a i neither intentional nor wanton, but only due to the t'act that the revision petitroner was suffering with heart ailment. The trial courl ought to have seen that t:te respondent No.l - plaintiff himself was claiming that there was partition tf the suit schedule properties between the family melYs, earlier, as such tl e suit for partition itself vvas not maintainable. The land bearing Survey No.l l0/1/E to an extent 3 Dr.GRR, J crp_3082_2019 of Ac.0-39 gufltas was the self-acquired property of the revision petitioner. The same was not the joint family property and not part of the deed of partition between the joint family members held on 28.09.1999. In view of the steep increase in the priccs of lands in the village, the respondent No.2 instigated respondent No- I to hle the present suit with fictitious claims. If the impugned order was not set aside and the petition seeking to condone the delay was not allowed, the revision petitioner would be put to great hardship and would suffer irreparable injury. On the other hand, if the petirion was allowed and if the suit was disposed of on merits, no prejudice would be caused to the respondents. The impugned order would sufl'er from perversity and exercising the jurisdiction vested in it in an improper manncr. If the same was allowed to stand, great prcjudice r.r,ould be caused io the petitioners. The trial court ought to have allowed the petition by imposing conditions or awarding reasonable costs to compensatc the respondents and pral,ed to set aside the order dated

15.07.2019 passed in I.A.No.225 ot 2018 in O.S.No.248 of 2012 by the leamed Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar, Mahabubnagar District and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apcx Court in Ummer v. Pottengal Subida and Othersl.

6. Leamed counsel for the respondent No.l - plaintiff on the other hand contended that there was no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the 'LAWS (SC) 2018 3 12 4 Dr.cRR, J crp_3082 20t9 court below. The leamed Principal Senior Civil Judge. Mi:habubnagar District on considering the contentions of both the parties and the le11al aspect in the said regard observing that the petitioner failed to give proper e <planation, showing sufficient cause for the period of delay with proper reasolls and not enclosed proper documents in proof of his ailment, dismissed the petilion and relied upon the judgment of the erstwhile common High Court of TeJangana and Andhra , Pradesh in C.R.P.Nos.l045 and 1241 of 2018 dated 20.1 1.2(118

7. Perused the record,

8. As seen from the affidavit filed by the petitioner in 1.A.No.225 of 2018, no reasons were given by him for condoning the inordinate delay of i384 days in filing his written statement. He only stated that thc case \ias posted fbr hling his written statemcnt, due to his ill health, he could not f ile i re \.\, ritten statement within the time. As such. the Court set him ex-parte ar-rd 1 asscd a preliminary decree on 21.07.2014. He had not stated that he had not received the noticc after the suit was restored to its file. He had not cvcn stated that he was su{lbring with heart ailment as raised in the grounds of app eal or as contended bv the leamed counsel for the revision petitioner. The document fi1ed by him along with the application would show that he visited \lallika Hospital on

03.07 .2014 for exertional giddiness. Hence, it was rightly c bserved by the trial court that he was not admilted X irr-puti"nt in the hospitai, nor the document 5 Dr.GR& J crp_3O82_20 I 9 was showing that he was suffering with any heart ailment and the said document itself was not sufficient to consider that it was a sufficient cause for explaining the delay of 3 years l0 months in filing the application for setting aside the ex-pane decree.

9. No proper care was taken by the petitioner in drafting the affidavit or in explaining the delay to condone the same. The merits of the case cannot be looked into by the Courts while considering the applications for condonation of delay as per the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in H.Guruswamy 'and Others v. A.Krishnaiah since decreased by LRs.2 in Civil Appeal No.317 of 2025. As such, this Court cannot consider the contentions raised by the lcamed counsel lor the petitioner with regard to the earlier partition or that land in Survey No.110/l/E to an extent of Ac.0-39 guntas was the self-acquired property of the revision petitioner and that it was not part of the deed of partition bctween thc joint family members held on 28.09.1999.

10. As per the well settled principles stated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in several of its judgments, it was not the length of the delay, but the acceptability ofthe explanation, which should be considered while disposing the applications pertaining to condonation of delay. As per Hon'ble Apex Court, "sufficient cause" means the party should not have acted in a negligent manner during the said period ' 2025 Live Law (SC) 53 I I Dr.GRR, J crp_3082_2019 11. The trial court also observed that the petitioner was none other than the 6 brolher of the respondent No,1 plaintiff and was residilg in a village near Mahabubnagar, rvhere the Court was situatcd and there. lvas every possibility of the petitioner to ascertain the progress of the suit. but th: petitioner had not taken any steps to know the progress of the suit for more rhan three years and had not shown sufficient reason why he had not shown intlrcst in know,ing the proccedings of the case until he received summons in the rnal decree petition filed by respondent No.l, which would clearly show tha thc petitioner was negligent and careless in filing the petition for condonation lf Celay.

12. ln the judgment relied by the learned counsel lbr the petitioner in Ummer v. Pottengal Subida and Others (cited supra), it was held tliat: "14. The cause pleaded by the appellant therein rvas rc Lating to his prolonged illness during the period in questl )ii i-hc appellant also filed medical documents to support the iitcturn of his iliness during the relevant time.

15. It is not in dispute that the appellant is an old man a td in his late sixties. It is also not in dispute that he did sul:br heart disease during the relevant period and later he was do *,n rvith dengue fever. It is also not in dispute that he was hos ritalized to gct medical treatment for these two ailments for a k ng time during that period. It is also not in dispute that he was r nentally disturbed due to disputes going on in his family and was not able to attend to his daglo-day duties due to his old agc and prolonged ailments. 7 Dr.GRR, J crp_3082_2019

16. It is an admitted fact that rhe High court did not dispute the genuineness of these lacts and nor disputed the genuineness of the documents filed by the appcllant in support of the cause pleaded. On the other hand, the High Court found as a fact that the appellanl did suffer these ailments.

17. In ths light of the aforementioncd undisputed facts, in our opinion, the l{igh Court should havc taken liberal-view in the matter and held the cause shown by the appellant as "sufficient cause" within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limilation Act and accordingly should have condoned the delay in filing the appeal.

18. One cannot now dispute the legal proposition that the earlier view of this Court that the appcllant was required to explain the delay of cach day till the date of filing the appeal has since bcen diluted by the later decisions of this Ccurt and is, therefore, held as no longer good law."

13. There was no dispute to the fact that the discretion to be exercised in a pctition for condonation of delay is based upon the facts ofeach case

14. In the above case, it was recorded that the appellant therein filed medical documents to support thc factum of his illncss during the relevant timc and that later he was down with dengue fever and he was hospitalized fbr the two ailments fbr a long time during that period. It rvas also recorded that he was mentally disturbed due to the disputes going on in his family and was not able to attend day to day duties due to his old age and prolonged ailments. which was not the case in hand. Though, the petitioner need not explain the day to day I 8 Dr.GRR, J crp_3082_2O19 delay, but atleast he musl show sufficient cause for cond )ning the inordinate delay in filing the petition.

15. In C.R.P.Nos.1045 and 1241 of 2018, the erstwhile (,ommon IIigh Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh observed that: "What constitute a sufficient cause always depends rpon the facts of a particular case and length of delay is not the deternrining factor. Tn the above judgments, th: Courl oonciuded that thc word "sufficicnt cause" mrtst [c givcn liberal construction without adopting pedantic apprc rch. but that does not mean that the Court has to accept rvhatever the reasons parry- assigned as suffioient cause to condone lre ciela-v undcr Section 5 of the Limitation Act. When a specii I reason is assigned i.e. ill health, for a period of 573 days in liling rhe petition, there must be some material, at least to thc sat sfaction of thc Court to arrive a just conclusion that the plair tilf rras prevented by a sufficient case, which is not beyond het controi. In thc absence of any material. accepLance of such rea: oning is nothing butjeftisoning the law of limitation, as obsen.e C b1, the ilon'ble Apex Court in Lanka Venkateswarlu (died) :y LRs. v. Sta,e of AP IAIR 20ll SC 1199]. Therefore. i re order passed by the trial court is erroneous on the facc of th: record and passing of such an order without any ma1:rial to substantiate the reason assigned by the petitioner for hl r fallure to prosecute the proceedings and the order did not stanc to legal scrulinv and thereforc it is liable to be set aside ivithout assigning any reason-" 9 Dr.GRR, J crp_s0 E2_2 019 In the above case, the delay of 573 days in allowing the petition to condone the delay by the trial court is considcred as erroneous by the High Coud.

16. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Basarvaraj and another v. Special Land Acquisition O{Iicerr after analyzing the law laid down by it in its earlier judgments concluded that: "The expression "sufficient cause" should be givcn a liberal interpretation to ensure that substantial jusrice is done, but only so long as negligence, inaction or lack of bonafides cannot be imputed to the party concemed. rvhether or not sufficicnt cause has been fumished. can be decided on the facts of a particular case and no straitjackct formula is possiblc- It is a settled legal proposition that law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The Court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds' "A result flowing from a statutory provision is nevcr an evil. A Court has no power to ignore that provision to relieYe what it considers a distress resulting fiom its operation."'lhe statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party, but the Court has no choice but to enforce it giving lull effoct to the same. The legal maxim "dura lex sed lex" which means "the law is hard but it is the law", stands attracted in such a situation." I I , I '(2013) l4 scc 81 Dr.GRR, J crp 3082 2019 17 . Considering the principles stated by the Hon'ble z\pe; I Court in the above 10 case and as no reasonable cause was stated by the petitione - in his affidavit for condoning the inordinate delay of 1384 days in filing the a;:plication for setting aside the ex-parte decree dated 21 .07.2014, the trial cour:t r;ghtly dismissed the petition filed b1'the petitioner and this Court does not fir1d any illegality or irregularity in the above order passed by the trial court to set aside the same. ' 18. In the result. the Civil Revision Petirion is dismissed i onfirmins the order dated 15.07.2019 passed in I.A.No.225 of 2018 in O.S.No.248 of 2012 b1,rhc leamcd Principal Scnior Civil -Iudge, Mahabubnagar. Mahab rbnagar District. N0 o1fls1 as to costs. As a sequci. miscellaneous applications pending in t ris petition, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- MOHD. ISMAtt ASSISI}TANi RECISTNNd f.-=- lsecttott oFFICER To, 1 . The Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar, Maha rubnagar District 2. One CC to Sri K Venkatesh Gupta, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri V Mallik, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies ADK HIGH COURT DATED:1 910212025 ORDER CRP.No.3082 of 2019 $ 1r1E IiTAI€ J ,) \-/ 1 i lull u6 C) .)' ..,' ,/ f 1:51^. r.C! ' -t-.=- -- ;:. j - DISMISSING THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS a t t