In support of his contention that the Courts should adopt a vs M.Krishnamurthyt.

...RespondenURespondenUDefendant lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 Rle 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 grant lnterim lnjunction restraining the,Respondent, his Agents, Servants, Executors, Attorneys, Assignees and all other persons claiming through him, from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Suit Schedule Property i.e., plot no.1 admeasuring 40-80 sq. feets out of Sy. No.145, situated in Ward No.16 within the municipal limits of Kagaznagar, KB Asifabad District which is bounded as under: East: Road (Lane) West: 12 Galli (Lane) North: Open Plot of Pintu (Dharmender Chauhan) South: Road @ ":lrr .r' Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri P. Lakshma Reddy Counsel for the Respcndent: Sri S. Prasad Babu The Court made the f rllowing: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CIVIL REVISION PETITI ON No.3239 OF 2024 ORDER: This Civil I{evision Petition is filed assailing the order, dated 18.07.2024, passed by rhe Junior Civil Judge at Suryapet in I.A.No.171 of 2022 in OS.No.89 of 2014.

2. Heard Sri P.Lakshma Reddy, leamed counsel for the revision petitioners, and Sri S.Prasad Babu, leamed counsel for respondent.

3. The revision petitioners are plaintiffs and respondent is defendant in the suit. For convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as arrayed in the suit.

4. The brief factual matrix of the case required for adjudication of the present case, is that the plaintifls filed suit in OS.No.g9 of 2014 for perpetual injunction against the defendant in respect of the suit schedule propefiy and the said suit was dismissed for default on 15.02.2019. Subsequently, an application in IA.No.171 of 2022 was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying the Court to condone the delay ofthree (3) years and 2g days in filing the application to set aside the dismissal order. The said application 7 2 LNtl, J CRP.!\o.123I of 2024 came to be lis Lrissed by the trial Court. Aggrieved br lhe same, the present Rt:v sion Petition is filed.

5. In ther r'frdavit, filed in suppoft of their applicrti'rn, the revision pctitio -els/plaintiffs averred that they were repr')sented by one Sri S.. a ,achander Rao, advocate, before the trial OorLrt; that the said couns< I rvas suffering from cancer and ullimatellr. clue to serious 'llne's. :,n being attacked by Corona virus. he d ier j in the Month of M a1 ' . ?-021; that plaintiff Nos.2 to 5, who are tlLc narried daughters of p aintiff No.1, came to know about the said fzrct on

20.02.20?2 ani fi,uther, on25.02.2022, they came to ktrorv about the dismissirl o t the suit for default; that immediatell', t[rc1' frled an application s :e , ing to condone the delay that occut red ir fi ling the application to 'et aside the dismissal order; and the"efore, tl.Le delay that occr-Lrrr:<l rt neither intentional nol' wanton and re co rdingly, prayed to cottd -,tte the same.

6. Leartre I counsel for the revision petition,:l;ip laintiffs submittecl that the revision petitioners/plaintiffs are itr porrsession of the suit scl r:dule property and the suit was filed lbl p erpetual injunction $h:n the defendant continuously interfered rvrth their possession ove l the suit schedule property and thus, valuable rights *sfuhe par:ti:r; r le involved in the suit. He further- srrbmitled that the 3 LNA, J CRP.No.3239 ol 2024 trial Court failed to appreciate that the delay is neither willful nor wanton on the pafi of the plaintiffs; that the trial Court failed to consider the explanation given by the plaintiffs for the delay and further, by adopting a rigid approach, the trial Court has erred in dismissing the application on narrow technical grounds and hence, prayed to allow this Revision Petition.

1. In support of his contention that the Courts should adopt a liberal approach when considering applications for condonation of delay, parlicularly when no mala fide or gross negligence is evident, learned counsel for revision petitioners relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Courl in N.Balakrishnan Vs. M.Krishnamurthyt.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/defendant submitted that the plaintiffs failed to explain the day-to-day delay; that the plaintiffs are intentionally prolonging the matter for one or other reasons; and that the trial Court taking into account the same, has rightly dismissed the appiication as the same is devoid of any merits and therefore, the impugned order of the trial Court warrants no interference by this Court. 11tssa; z scc rz: 4 LNA, J (RP.I o.123, oI2024 g. In A..Br lakrishnan's (cited supra), the Hc'n'ble Sr Lpreme Court at paras 9 and 10 held as hereunder: "9. ll it oxiomatic that condonation of delay is a nhlt'cr tsf ctitt,:, tttion of the Court. Section 5 of the L'ntitt'lit'rt ,4cl a'o, 't tlot say that such discretiot't can bt <'ret t i:cd onl't ii 'he tlelay is wtthin a certain limit' Lengih ol tlela.t t; tl.o matter, acceptability of the explanati'tti is the cqt t criterion. Sometimes delay of short<'st rlge rna., I ' uncondonable due to want of acce|tral:le t'xpltrn ilirtrt, whereas in certain other cases cleLul o1' |crf lt ng range cdn be condoned as the exltlttt't' rlior' the,ttt is salisfactory. Once lhe Court acccPl tll( tx!.'lttt1:"ti()n as sufficient it is the restlt rtJ' l"' i'rt'' cx(r.i t) of cJiscretion and normally the superior ('r tu' .slun tt not disturb suchfinding, much less in l clisiI'tttl ,,trri:d,'.lion, unless the exercise o.f discretio:t tt'tr'r ot wholt.\ LLntenable grounds or arbilrarl' or per\'( \e Bti ir t; o c)i.lferent malter when the firsl Courl r'tfi'se' ro c;ttt:'ttne the delay. In such cases, the supe"iot' crturt .,4).tlL/ be free to consider the cause slrcwn .fL'r rlt ,1g|(,.1 lrfi'esh and it is open to such superiot ()ttu t l't t.:otti(' '() its own finding even untrammelt'd bt' th: co't:1";ion of the lower Court I t Tl'te reason for such a dffirent stan< e is t'ttt'., ' intary function of a court is to adjuCicart: th': Tl'e t ' cli,;7,rr ,' 6r*r", the porties and to advance substatlit'l .iu.ttit : Time limit fixed for approaching lhe Cow'i i,t cli,f,:r tnt situations is not becatue on the exp,rv o.t'uctt liltt i hdd cause would transform into a goo,l ca,rc ' I 5 LNA, J CRP.No.32i9 of 2024

10. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble 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 resoit to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly; that the wordb ,,sufficient cause,, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. The Hon'ble Supreme Courl also observed that it must be remembered that in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part of litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down his plea and shut the door against him at the threshold. If the explanation does not smack of mala fides or it is not put lorth as part of a dilatory strategy, the Court must show utmost consideration to the suitor. I 1. Perusal of record discloses that the sole ground pleaded by the plaintiffs seeking for condonation of delay in filing the application for setting aside the dismissal order passed in the suit is the illness of their counsel and his ultimate death in May,202l, which they came to know on 20.02.2022, i.e., about one year after his death. The said fact of death of counsel appearing for the plaintiffs is neither rebutted nor disputed by the defendant in the counter filed by the trial Court. The plaintiffs also produced copies 6 l-l|A- .l ('RP..\ o.123't of 2t124 of medical r()c l1'c1s and the death certificates of the ild'ocate- Sri S.Jayachant r:r Rao, who was engaged by ther eallier' These docutnents 8.c t ) show the illness suffered by the ,said atlr ocrrte and his dcath rrn I I r)5.202 l. 12. Furtht:r it is the case of plaintiff Nos2 to :i thrrt their mother-pl aitrt i l" No.l who was looking after tl-tt: caso tlied on 1 0.12.2020. . s :uch, only on 25.02'2022, they camt: to kno'v about disrnissal o I- tI il suit for default and immediately, thel f tcd the apptication firt ,:ondonation of delay in fiting the applicltic'n to set aside the deie rlt order. Therefore, though this C'rurt iint s some lapse/non-dilig:'rlce on the parl of plaintiff Nos 2 to 5 irr l ursuing the mattcr. pl3 r.:ly lbr that reason their plea cannot be :urllt d down and doors c,f it stice shut for them'

13. .\s r,:ld bY the Hon'ble SuPrerne (-l c,u rt 1n N.Balakri.sltt /rn's (cited supra)' Section 5 of the Linritation Act does not sa) 1'at discretion can be exercised by the Co'r(; only if the delay js vithin a certain limit' Length of de)ay rs nt' matter' acceptabilitl ,. the explanation is the only criterion'

14. In thc nstant case, since substantial rights of thr'prtrties are involvecl ;Lt'd rs such, to safeguard the interests of trle party in I I i 7 LNA, J CRP.No.3239 oJ 2024 pursuing their remedy before the Court of law, this Court deems it appropriate to take a liberal view and condone the delay.

15. In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the trial Courl erred in dismissing the application on mere technical grounds and hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

16. For the aforesaid reasons and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment cited supra, this Civil Revision Petition deserves to be allowed. 17 . Accordingly, this Revision Petition is allowed and the order, dated 18.07.2024, passed by the Junior Civil Judge at Suryapet in I.A.No.171 of 2022 in OS.No.89 of 2014 is set aside and l.A.No.l7l of 2022 stands allowed.

18. As a sequel, pending Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shatl stand closed. No costs. //TRUE COPYII SD/- MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUry REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, '1. The Junior Civil-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Sirpur-T 2. One CC to Sri P. Lakshma Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri S. Prasad Babu, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies Kamigh \qr HIGH COURT DATED:2310411025 ORDER CRP.No.3239 of 2024 -, ,:. ittE S Ta 14: c^ { ) , ,-) \.1\\ 2 I ury znz5 I 1)/ sF rrF:O ( r ALLOW!NG TI{E CIVIL REVISION PE TITION . \e "oP(d &.