The High Court · 2025

24.Pendota Srinivas, S/o. Late Suraiah Aged about 23 Years R/o. Ankoor Village of V Sadiapur Mandal of Karimnagar District.

25. Pendota Kamalakar, S/o. Late Suraiah Aged about 21 Years R/o Aknoor Village of V Saidapur A/landal of Karimnagar District.

26. Gollapalli Rama. Wo. Sadanandam Aged about 30 vears Rio. Bommakal Village of V Sadiapur Mandal of Karimnagar District. Respondents No. 4 to 26 are not necessary parties ...Respondents ,aa: -r. , lA NO: 6 OF 2024 Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order passed in LA No. 856 of 2022 in lA No 615 of 2008 in O.S. No. 538 of 1968 dated 14 09.2023 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil J udge-Cum-J udicia I [t/agistrate of First Class at Huzurabad pending disposal of the main C.R.P. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI A.JAGAN Counsel for the Petitioner No.2: SRI AMBEDKAR DUNNA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : SRI K.BUCHI BABU Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 to 26 :-- The Court made the following: ORDER The Hon'ble Smt. Justice Renuka Yara. Civil Revision Petition No.1 727 of 2024 Order: Tlris is :i Clivil Revision Petition clirected allainst ihe inriruqrre<1 orcer passed bv the Iearned Prl' 'lu:r-rior Civil .Iucige'cum .iltdicial Magistrate of First Class at Fluzur-airad in I.A No.856 ci 2022in IANo 615 ol 2OOB in (t S No 538 ol 1c)68. datccl I 1-O9.2023' '2 Hearrcl Srl Dunna Ambedkar, learned counsel for the rer,.ision petiti()ller No.2 and Sri K Buchi Babu ' learncd to 3;/proposcd counsel for the respondent Nos l pctltloncrs 'fhc clcceased plaintiff rx'ho is shourl tts re\'1s1on 3. petitioncl No.1 herein filed suit for partition :rnd the said suiL u'r.rs c1e :rc,ecl allotting 1/6Lrr share to 1lr': dcceased pl:rintiff. Tht n, the revision petitioner No 2 hereln filed a petition vicle l-A.No.79O of 2010 to bring him on record alter the denrise of thc deceased plaintiff u'ho inil iated final clecre e proceeclings and the same came to be dismissed for default. Cttrrently, the respondent Nos' 1 to 3 herein have liled the present petition to condone the dela-v of 12 1'ears 8 2 months 17 days in filing the petition to set aside the ordcr of abatement passed against the deceased plainLiff. In tl-rat regard, the revisions petitioner herein opposed the petitron contending that the dclay is not properll, explained, The reasons for delay about the respondct-rt Nos- I to 3 bcing ignorant of law cannot be a grourrd for condoning thc deiay. While disposing of the petition, rhe learned Trial Court heid that the nature of proceedir-rgs and necessitv of representation of the proposed parties has to be cor-rsiclered for condoning delay. lt is held that the respondent Nos. I to 3 cannot be made to suffer for not liling the petitiorr at appropriate stage i.e. u,ithin 90 days of death of their father. it is further held that for adjudication of final dccree proceedings, there is a need fbr- prescnce of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein, as such, delav r.rras condoned. Aggrier.ed by the same, the revision petition is filed

4. In grounds of revision, it is submitted that the delay of 12 years, B months and 17 days is condoned ri.ithout there being a proper explanation about the reasons for delay. The preliminary decre e as well as order of abatement in I.A.No.615 of 2OOB r,vere passed in the year 2008. It is .l colrterlded tirerI merc ground of ignorance is not sulficient ro condone the clelav of l2L years and therefore, thc icar;,.ccl Trial (lorrrt grossly erred in allot'inEa tht J'etitiott .) Duiinii rir-pLunents in retzision, thc learr-red cottnsel tbr thr: revisiort 1,etitioner No.2 rclied upon judgment of the IJon'blc sLll)l-rrme Court of India in case bctvveen Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Acade:ny and othersL about r.vhat cor:.stituLcs zr sulficir--ul ca t-t ;e

6. There is r-ro dispute about the fact that the farher of rcsporrdettt Nos. 1 to 3 and revision petitioner N o 2 hereill filecl a sr-rit fo - partition and obtained a preliminrl-1' decree' Subscqr-rent Lr'. it-r the year 2008, final decree proceedings n.cre inil.iaterl and at that time, the father of respondent Nos.l to ll c1ied. At this juncture, allegedlv, revision petitioner No.2 has convinced the respondent Nos l to 3 u,ho are his Itatural sisters that he u'ill comc on record, that he n,iil get the share of their father a11ot'ted in his namc and tlren the same be equally divided among the sisters and ttre brother. The respondent Nos.1 tc' 3 beheved '(2013) 12 scc 649 W *ri 1::...x - ,., .1 the version of revision petitioner No.2 and therefore, clid not participate in the suit proceedings. Subsequently', respondent Nos.1 to 3 came to knor,r' that the revision petitioner No.2 closed the petition filcd bv hirn to bring him on record and by getting thc final decrec procccdir-rgs abated is trying to gct mutation of entire share of properties allotted to their father in the final decree rn his name The version of respondent Nos.1 to 3 does noL give clarity about whether there is conclusion o1' hr-ral dccree proceedings or they are still pending

7. The reason of ignorance 1S not a ground for non participation of the respondcnt Nos.l to 3, ratl-re r, they have believed their brother's r.ersion i.e. revisiorr petitiorler No.2 herein that he u,lll come on record, get the sh:rre of their father and then divide ii among the siblrngs. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 believed the said versior-r and lrar.e voluntarily desisted from participating in the said proceedings. At this juncture, the respondent Nos.l to 3 cannot claim ignorance about the suit proceedings. In the judgment relied upon by the rerrision petitioner No.2 hereit-t in Esha Bhattacharjee case (supra), the delay r'r.as sought I'J bc ccndorrecl on tire plea oI lack of knos4ecge anci thc s.lnlc ls ircld to be lacl<ed bona fides. Ti-re facts ,rf said case irre not ap'D rcirble to the facts of the prescul- case. The rei)son c:itecl iirr clelav bv i-cslondent Nos.l to 3 i.e. lacl< ol l<nou lec1p1e. is lot cor rcct and therefore, not sufficient to condorc'the d clar'

3. From t rc overall pleadings of the affidavit filed bl the responde nL \os.I to 3, it can be inferred thrrt the linal ciccree has b::cn passcd allotting a share to their fathcr and rcvision petitioner No.2 is tn,ing to get the said share of their tal her nrutated completely in his name to the exclusion of the respondent Nos.l to 3. Thar, being the case, sincr: tlrt: linal decree procecdings have concludcd etnd a slralr has been allotted to the revision petitioner No.2. the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein have to agitate for tLrerr sharc'.-gainst thc revision petitioner No.2 in separate i proceedings and no relief can be sought in the final decree proceedings that hane a1read1, concluded in the year 201 B As staterC ln revision petitioner No.2, no purpose r'r,i1l be solve d cven 1n case the present petition is allowed as the final decrec proceedings have concluded. The respondent l) U re\ 6 Nos. 1 to 3 have to u,ork out their remedies against their brother i.e. revisions petitioner No.2 hereiir for rccoverv of their sl'rare in the property allotted to their father in O.S.No.538 of 1968. In the circumstances, there are r1o merits in the order passed by the iearned Trial CourL erncl the samc is liable to be set aside

9. In the result, the impugned order dated 14.09.2023. in i.A.No.B56 of 2022 in I.A.No.615 of 2008 in 0.S.No.538 of 1968, on the filc of the lcarned Prl. Junior Civil Jr-rdgc curm Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Huzurabacl, is sct aside and the Civil Revision Petition is allorved - No costs As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions. if an,r', pending in this petition shall star-rd closed SD/-A.H.S. GOWRI SHANKAR ASS TANT REGISTRAR ,I //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To, 1, The Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Juddicial Magistrate of First Class at Huzurabad.

2. One CC to Sri Ambedkar Dunna, Advocate [OpUC] 3. One CC to Sri K.Buchi Babu, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri AJagan, Advocate IOPUCI 5. Two CD Copies NVts/PSL Yv t t HIGH COURT DATED:2310912025 -..,-- -' ' .i ...\- t' 1 \' .;_ \..- \...-i-;r. ORDER CRP.No.1727 of 2024 t";, '.. .r ),. 'j-. 0 0[I 201[ , ,) ,. I J,. ..,/ ,^r-y' ,,y' -;i-! -.-; ALLOWING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION ,gtt> { ffi6u"