The High Court · 2025

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 stay of all proceedings in pursuance of the judgment and decree Dt: 07-08-2024 passed in OS No. 125212019 passed by the Hon'ble XVll Addl. Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad, pending disposal of above CRP. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri. Rapolu Bhaskar Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following: ORDER (1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGAIIA AT HYDERABAD T'HE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY IL RB ION No.3543 F DATE :31.12.2025 Between: Sri. Gundeboina Venkatesham Smt. S. Charrdrakala and 5 others. AND ...Petitioner ...Respondent ORDER: The present is a Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitutioti of India challenging the order dated 27.06.2025 passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Courr, Hyderabad, in I.A.No.6725 of 2024 in A. S. S.R.N o.241 19 of 2024.

2. Hearrl Mr. Rapolu Bhaskar, learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. vide the impugned order, the Appellate court has rejected the application filed by the petitioner herein to condone the delay of 36 days in filing the agrpeal. ". L I i I i (-

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in the course of his arguments submits that it is a case where a Suit vide O.S.No.L252 of 2019 was filed by the petitioner for declaration of title and cancellation of gift deed bearing document No.l481 of 2010 and for perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property before the learned XVII Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The said Suit stood dismissed on 07.08.2024. Against the said judgment, the petitioner preferred an appeal with a delay of 36 days, and along with the appeal, he f,rled an application for condonation of delay which was registered as I.A.No.6725 of 2024. The said IA stood dismissed only on the ground that the application of the petitioner was as vague as it could be without any plausible explanation justiffing the delay caused, much less each day's delay.

5. It is this I.A. which stood dismissed vide the impugned order leading to filing of the present Civil Revision Petition

6. Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, being a government employee, was occupied with official duties and therefore, could not contact his counsel in time for the pu{pose of filing the appeal against the judgment dated ::. ..;ii:,.1;,*:': 1.r;. -1.. .i r..nl a

07.08.2024, resulting in the delay. It is contended that for the said cause shown for the rlelay, the petitioner should not suffer an irreparable loss.

7. Nonetheless, the Appellate Court ought to have considered the fact that it was a case vrhere the Suit stood dismissed, and it was the plaintiff s appeal. If the appeal is not entertained on merits, the petitioner would be rendered remediless which is not in the larger interests of justice. Thus, prayed for a suitable order from this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 221 of the Constitution of India i.e., the supervisory power.

8. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court finds sufficient forc,e and strength in the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner to the extent that the appellant did not contact his counsel in time for filing the aplleal due to office exigencies. However no person should be rendered remedyless. Condonation of delay petitions are prepared by the Counsel representing the party and it is well settled position of law that while preparing the same, plausible explanation should be reflected showing the delay of each day in filing of the appeal whatever be the period of delay. In the absence of such details, it cannot be expected that the Courts would always consider the applications as a matter of routine or for that matter the fr: application for condonation of delay would be allowed even if it is bereft of explanation and justification for the delay

9. This Court does not find any fault on the part of the Appellate Court while rejecting the condone delay application as the same did not reflect any explanation. However, what is necessary to be considered by this Court at this juncture, more particularly when the relief sought for by the petitioner is one under Article 227 ofthe Constitution of India which is otherwise supervisory Writ jurisdiction which is also meant to impart equity-based justice to the parties. .)

10. As has been discussed in the earlier paragraphs, for the fault of the petitioner in not contacting his counsel for filing the appeal in time owing to office exigencies, this Court is of the view that the pafty should not be rendered remediless. As unless the delay is condoned, the appeal cannot be taken up for hearing and his claim for partition would get extinguished for all times to come. In the given circumstances, and in the peculiar facts of the present case, this Court is of the opinion that a strong case for allowing the present Civil Revision Petition has been made out. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 27.06.2025 is set aside and the matter stands remitted back to the Appellate Court permitting the petitioner to file fresh application for condonation of delay giving proper justification for the delay of 36 days in filing of the first appeal. Upon such application being filed, the Appellate Court is expected to take an appropriate decision in accordance with law ll. Acconlingly, the present Civil Revision Petition is allowed and disposed of. No costs.

12. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY/ SD/- K. BHAVANI SWAMY ANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

1. s. chanJrakala, wo late s. yadagiri, occ.Govt., Emproyee, R/o H.No. 19-41280122, Miryaram, Firterpet, euarter No.22, Thadban, Hyoerauao 2- A. Vamshi Krishna, s/o yadaiah, occ. pvt,. Emproyee, R/o H. No. 19-4128(1122, Miryalam, Filterpet, euarter No. 22, Thadban, Hyderabad. 3. A. swathi, D/o yadaiah, occ. student, R/o H. No. 19-4t2got22,tVliryalam, 4. Deputy (lommissioner, GHMC, circre No. 7, Khairatabad, Hyderabd, 5. One CC to SRt. RAPOLU BHASKAR, Advocate IOPUC] 6. Two CD Copies Filterpet, Quarter No. 22, Thadban, Hyderabad. kul/PSL HIGH COL'RT DATED: 31 11212025 ORDER CRP.No.3543 of 2025 O t * S t 1 {:i:B 2f17f, * ALLOWING THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS g ; I t: * i I I t \ \ ' t.. --.:-- .