The High Court · 2025

1. Avusula Ashok (DIED), (died per LR,s). 2 l,ngnq Oqr! qgeg about.42.years, Wi.Narsimutu. Occupation Housewife. 3 S.Sridhana Qf ary,-qSed-alout 3l years, S/o Brahmaiah Chary, Occupataon . Agriculture, R/o.H.No.4-9-356, Venkateshwara Cotony, efamy'af fy V,tiaiiUiU 4 Abdul Sam1d, agejl about 54 yea.rs, S/o Khalu Miya. Occupation Agncutture and Krrana Shop, R/o.Alampaily, Vikarabad '

5. Smt A,Maheslrqqri.ag.e! about 39 years, Wo.Late Ashok, Occupation . Household, R/o.H.No.4-9-38, Alamlally. now presently residrnq jt Sanqa ReddY Respond";S:f'-:$i:l*1", ' lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under V Rure 20 (rA) RA& section i51 of cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in ftre affidavit filed in support of the petition, in" Higr, cou.t may be pleased to arrow the petitioner to serve the notice on the 2nd r.slpono"ni by availing substituted service by way of advertising in a daily nu*. pupul n"ring circulation in the locality in which the 2nd respondent is rast known to have residei in the interest of justice . lA NO: 1 oF 2024 Petition under section_15-1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, tn"-nigh Court may be preased to direct 2 to 4 not ro aiienate tre pJtition schedute p;;;;t ;;;;;; lli,.1i."o"ro""ts ''A" SCHEDULE OF PROPERW All that of rhe Agricutrur"^t:ld.: bearing Sy.No.67tA,67tAA and Sy.No. 68/4, Sy.No--68/Ar,4 and Sy No 68/A./t, nam."ec.tOO gt"., nc f OO gtr. X".ii+ gt.., Ac.3-03 gts , and Ac 2-10 gts , totally aOm. Ac.g"_b7 gts., situa"ted ,t nf"rp-"ffv Village Vikarabad Drsrrcr EAST . La;d of Kompally gieemaiah W.ST i;;J;i - K Rukka Reddy NoRTH Land of Abdur samau soiirn. Land of x. aneemaian .,8" SCHEDULE PROPERTIES All that of the house bearing Na 4_9-23g, adm., 200 Sq.yards Situated at Alampatty Vittage EAST House of T Anasujamma WeSf Hori" ot X. l,6ravarl' -- vi i \' ' !q' qrq' NoRTH House of T Shankaraiah SoUTH H.jus. J NlighUori, 'o Counsel for the petitioner: SRt. M. N. NARASIMHA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: None appeared The Court made the following ORDER: 1 I I I t I i HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY ,1 C L REVISION PETITION No.3414 of 2024 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is Illed aggrieved by the order dated O3.O9.2O24 passed in I.A.No.139 of 2O2O in A.S.(S.R.)No.4487 of 2OL9 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Judge, Vikarabad District, in dismissing the application frled to condone the delay of 378 days in filing the appeal.

2. The petitioner filed A.S.(S.R.)No.4487 of 2Ol9 aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 25.06.2018 in O.S.No.279 of 2006 on the frle of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad filed seeking for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule "A and B" properties by dividing the same into equal shares and for other consequential reliefs. It is stated that the said A.S.(S.R.)No.4487 of 2079, has been filecl along with I.A.No. 139 of 2O2O seeking to condone the delay of 378 days in frling the said appeal, and the same \f,'as dismissed uide impugned order dated O3.O9.2024.

3. The impugned order dated O3.Og.2L24in I.A.No. 139 of 202O reveals that the petitioner had been under treatment of Dr.Gayatri at Manjira Government Hospital, Sanga Reddy. It is stated that she begotten two children by undergoing cesarean operation and had been under maternity leave from Ol. tO.2O Ig to 3O.O9.2O19. As she was unable to leave from the bed, she could not contact her counsel to file appeal within the specified period. It is further stated that the Appellate court, without taking into consideration of the said flacts, stating that the reasons explained by the petitioner were not sufficient, dismissed the application filed for condoning rh. dera), and consequently, not entertained the appeal.

4. Admitteclh., no counter has been filed opposing the said application llled b-v the petitioner befiore the Appellate court. Even in the Civil Revision petition also, dggpit6 service of notice b-r, rvar. of Registered post with Aclorowledgment Due and substilute service of notice, the respondents have not contested rhe rnatter opposing the craim of the petitioner. 5' f'urrhermore, *'hen the petitioner has satisfied that she was under nr:irernitv leave from Ol.IO.2Olg to 3O.O9.2OI9, , .1 l I i i that is for almost twelve (12) months on the ground that she has given birth to two children, tJle Appellate Court ought to have taken into consideration the said facts as sufficient cause for condoning the delay to file an appeal.

6. In view of the above circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the reasons explained by the petitioner that she is aged about 24 years, she has given birth to two children in a Government Hospital by undergoing caesarean operation are sulficient to condone the delay.

7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allou,ed setting aside the order dated O3.O9.2O24 passed in I.A.No.139 of 2O2O in A.S.(S.R.)No.4487 of 2O19. No Costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions ending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// S D/. T.TIRU MALA DEVI EPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The Principal District Judge' Vikarabad' 2 One CC to SRI M N NARASIMHA REDDY' Advocate IOPUCI 3. Two CD CoPies [.trl ::lr 'w,,. .6e Slr*'l ( \ 2 s llAY 2[6 o t Dt I { ) HIGH COURT DATED:2110212O11!; ORDER CRP.No.3414 of 2024 ALLOWING'll{tr ( lVll. ltl,\ lSl( )\ I'l lll()\ ,v1\ (/t^ \ \7 sr! \J'Z/\/t\v" t