The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondent: No 1 SRI BANDUGULA ALEI(HYA Counsel for the Respondent: No 4 & 5 SRI B.RAVI KIRAN SINGH Counsel for the Respondent: No 2 & 3 NONE The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3796 OF 2023 ORDER: This Civil Rcvision Petition is filed assailing the order dated

02.06.2023 in I.A.No.966 of 2022 in O.S.No.49 of 2013 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy.

2. Heard Sri P. Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Bandugula Alekhya, learned couusel for respondent No.1

3. The petitioners herein are thc plaintiffs and respondents herein are defendants before the Trial Court

4. Brief facts of the case arc that petitioners herein filed O.S.No.49 of 2013 for partition and separate possession of agricultural land ln Sy.No.120/B to an exten[ ol Ac.6-02 gts, situated at Indrakaran Village of Sangareddy Mandal, Medak District (hereinafter referred to AS 'schedule property'). Respondents herein entered aPPearance and filed written statement and during the pendency of the suit, petitioners filed application to implead subsequent Purchaser as Party to the suit trlde I.A.No.745 of 2013 and the same was coming up for issuance of notice to proposed party. It appeals that the petitioners herein failed to deposit -,7 I i I _- lu,'L , LI'S J, t RP No.t796 of 2023 2 process and thc suit was adjourned from time to tirrc and was finally posted to 28.07 .201.7 and on that date, there was no representation on bchalf of petitiorlers, therefore, the trial Court disnussed the suit for default. Plaintiffs filect I.A.No.966 of 2022 under Scction 5 of Lirnitation Act to condone thc delay of 7696 days in filing the application to restore the suit. ll'ial Court rride impugned order ciatect 02.(16.2023, dismissed the sarne with an observation that no specific reasou is mentionecl for t onclonation of huge clelay of L696 days and furtl,cr observecl that pctitioners are llot interested in prosecuting the casc a nd ir-r the absence of proper reasons, delay application cannot be allow,'cl. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended tl-at along with the suit, application for interim iniunction was filed anel thc same was granted restraining the respondents from alienatirrg the schedule property, howevc.r, responclent No.3 alienatecl the sc teclulc property, tlrerefore, pctitioners filed I.A.No.745 of 2075 to implt,ad trar.sferee as party to the suit and the said application was dismisstcl on 28.07.2017, {or non payment of process and suit was also dismi:rsed for default, Learned counsel further contended that effect of dismi:;sal of suit came to light only when the petitioners approached counscl for irnpleading one Sri Bollan Nagesh, who was interfering with the possession of the ,/ / ,/' I.NA.J, CRP tio J796 of2023 3 a schcdule Property, and that the counsel of the Petitioners instead of filing impleacl application, returned the bundle along with No Objection Certificate on 17.122027 and that on verification' Petitioners came to know that suit was dismissed for default on 28'07 '2017 and the said fact was neither informed to the petitioners nor their earlier counsel took any steps to restore the suit' I-Ience' the delay of 1969 days in filing the application to restore the suit occurred'

6. Learned counsel for the pciitioners further contended that substantial rights of the petitioncrs in immovable properties are involved, and for no fault of the Petitioners' they cannot be deprived of the legitimate share in the schedule proPerty' The trial Court instead of considering application liberally, disrnissed the same Learned counsel further contended that the Courts have constantly held that where substantial rights of Parties in immovable properties are involved or affected, Courts havc to take a liberal approach in condoning the delay' Learned counsel further contended that matters involving immovable properties should be decided on their merits rather than throwing out the rights of the litigants on technicalities and prayed to allow dre Revision d/v+- I t.iA,J, ( RP No.l796 oJ 2023 4

7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.l contendecl that petitioners failed to explain the inordinate clelay of 1696 clays i, filing the application to seI aside the ordcrs dated 02.06.2|)23, ancl therefore, th. trial court has rightly dismissed the applicatior. Learncd counsel finally contencled that thc revision is devoid of meriLs and the same is liable to be dismissed.

8. In support of his contention, learned counsel for rcsponclent No.1, placed reliancc on the judgment of I lon'ble Apex (-ourt in oriurtal Aroma Chemicnl Indisties Limited vs Gujarat lrultL: trinl Dcuclopnrent Corporntiort and Anotherl, wherein it is held as follows:

75. 'l'le crpression " suffcient cnux,, employed itL Sectotr 5 of tla Ltnitotion Act,'1963 and similnr otler stntutes is elastit: ctrottglt fo enal c lhe rcurts to npphl the lmu in t meaningfi mnnner toltich ;rrlsentts the. mds of justict. Although, no lnrd-and-fnst ntle cnn be ltid tiorpn it rl,oling toith the applications for condonation ol dttay, Lh s ()ourt ltns justifabhl idaomted atloyttion of a libernl npproach in oulortrttc tla fulny of slntrt du rntittt n nd n stricter appronclt tohere the delny i s ntt rh nate . . ,,

9. It is also apt to refer to the judgment of Hon,bl , z\pex Court in Union of lndia and another u. lahangir Byramji leejeebhoy (l)) throteh his [,R (sLP (Cioil) No.21096 of 2019 dnted 03.04.2024), wher,,it rrre r{o^,bre Apex Court by referring the judgment of the samc Court in Es&n ' 1zoro1 s scc ass LNA,J CRP ]to.1796 of2023 5 Bhattacharjee o. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Acndemy €t Others [(201,3) L2 SCC 649],held as under " delay should not be excused as a nwtter of generosity. Rerulering substantial justice is not to cause preiudice to the opposite partY" . 10 In Basawaraj and another v. Special Land Acquisition Officer2, the Flon'ble Supreme Court heid as under: I I I I l l "11. The expression "sufficient cause" should be given a liberal inl.erpretation [o ensure tJrat substantial iustice is done, but only so Iong as negligence, irutctiott or lack of bona ftles ctnnot be inryuted to the par$ mncented., whether or not sufficient cause has been furnished, can be decided on the facts of a particular case and no straitjacket formula is possible. (Yide Madnnlnl v. Shyamlal l(2002) 1 SCC 535 : AII{ 2002 SC 1001 and Ram NntlL Sao v. Gobmdlnn Sao ORDER CRP.No.3796 ot 2023 /:,- -,.. 1 0 StP i025 \:. DISMISSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION WITH OUT CC}STS b