The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI P.PREM RAJ Counsel for the Respondents: -- The Court made the following: ORDER r THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAI I KOSHY Civil Revision Petition No.3711 of '.D25 oRDER: The rr-rsta,nt Ci.,'il Revision Petition has r1l.:,1 b y the petitioners under Section 115 of Civil Procedure (-,r l:. i(-r08 irra:iing ihe Court to anlov,' -rhe Civii Revision Petition br' ( llrlis ilsicle thc : S.r'l \ ,.. i:ii:l- r:-,: -r ,jrred l1.Oi-r 2025 in i.A.No.3ai4 of 2025 ir r: -Ji5 passed bi' the Chief Judge, Cig' Civil Cr,': r. :.i [Jlcc-r':i::tr: (for short, 'the imPugned order'). 2,. He;rrd Mr. P. Prem Raj, learned counsel 1or t r)3-liioa{ir-

3. Vi,ie i.he irnougned order, the First Appella-ir '-,.ri.r-' disrlrrssetl j.re ?i:r--'...1 I..t. tt'htch rvas filed by the petitionerr. 'r-i:r ';r ,:,::-, :. -: ccri:jor:atioir oi dclav cf 145) c1a';s in filing the :r1-- ' ',: .-p';ear i\.:, .. corsequence, thi: apoeal, A.S.S.R.No.l3B32 of . . ll5, alS.r si-ir()a ciis:;r: ssed 4 l'he facts oi tne case in brief are that pe:, i , rrcr s her':ii a:i t. i-,1a,nriffs in O.S.No.16O3 of 20 19 which q.as t'ileri firr lecia-r-ation of a Gift Settlement Deed bearing I) ; :.rriirnt t\c.l -0-l I 2418 dated 05.03.2018 as null anct void, and ! iit;t;i:ri:. tioir o1 2 \ E _r_1 iSK ) - title. recoven' of possession, perpetual irquncticn, d:unages :rlld c.rmpensation in respect of the suit scheduie propert-v. Vicie order Cateo 07.C3.2025, the said suit stood dismlssed brr the Trial Court. .\gql.iei e o, lhe petitioners herein preferred 3n alle:ri beiore ihe F;rst Appeiiate Cour-t rvhrch u'as numberec as A.S-S.R N': i3E32 of 2025' a delar- r'l ii6) ciavs' Ho.,r,errer, the said appeal has been ijied The reason for the said delay is that the petitioners herein $,ere nct ar.r'are about the court procedure and lherefore ti-te]' coulci not fiie , .rr said aPoeal rvithin time "i"tir S. Lear-neci ccurlsel ibr the petitioner-c ca'.egcrica-ii-" contendecl ii-rat petitioDers (appellants) herein are rilst:c '"i;iagers fu..ti a.l-e totall]' ilijte i ate a:tci nor n.iuch arr.are ri th elr ;-igi-r: l.: ap:cal and aisc thc proccdure fo:' iiling of the appeal: ani 'in ihe ploctss' b-v the time ilte' co'-ici get i-ro1d cf the certified clcY cr ti:' -1t'r'1gi]:rtn''- :rn d dei:ree passed D'.- t1^,C Trial Courr. a delar- oi'+5: ci a-'-s il- ir]'-r1 piacr' in iiiing the abc-,.,'e appea,i. He iur"the: subr:itier -:1. i:'t',iioirers ilerein -,r,citlcl lose a substalilive right oi appeai ,i case ,i 1-re coL-1|i ine ciciav petitlon is nol considereci iit a more pragmati. ani libcrz{ manller. FIe i,rrther s'.rbmitted that the petiticners wouL,-i be ieprived oi an ooport.unit-v to challenge the order dated 07.03.2o25 in o.S.No. 1603 of 2nlg passed by the XVll senior Civil 'Iudge, Clitr: Cn'i1 Court, Hyde-rabad. in accordance with 1aw, 3

6. Having heard the contentions put forth by thtr i:ar;red coLtnsel for the petitioners, this Court is of the considered : :inior-i that l-irst of ail, the delav is only (46) days rvhich cannot be , onsldererC ro be inordir-rate. lvloleo',er the petitioners herein are rlr l ir- r, ':lag1-.s :.1 i,,-r were not * e 11 eqr-rioped u'ith the lega-l rights and t I : rerneC."' cf iair avaiiable to t.hcrrii.

7. Another aspect as has been contended by the r l:rned connsel for the Detltioners is that the petitioners \1'ol i c. be renierei remediless i;r cast: !f lhe delay is not condoned and r-.1 ;ippei:ri ls r,,.,i decided on merits,

8. Realisrns rhe fact that the petitioners -vr. rl be r,:r jr:rc,ll remediless rnsoiar as his remedy for challenginq .he ':rder dateo

07.O3.2025 in O.S.No.1603 of 2019 passed by th: il Il Sen,or Civrl .Judge, Citv Crr il Ct-rurt, Hyderabad, u'hereby ti- e sarC s'-iil u .r.'i Cismissed. the i--ir-st .\ppcllate Court has got the p: r 3:' t,l e 1t-':tir:i: Liectiorr 5 c;ncici;i: rlelal Fetitions. Consiciering i:: t().aiit'- .' lhcts ani cilr:urr,s'.,rnces oi the case and also takili rciir .f th:' ii'r:r' being cni.; t;rat oi {46) dai's, and that the petitione r: ^ei-cir, ..;: lr r-.:i villa.ge backdrop rvith less education and unal\'€j: of therrr lega; rights, the First Appellate Court ought to hav: ta-ken a rnore pragmatic zind iiberal vierv before entertarning th t condon e delav petition. h the o1,,inion of this court, the petitiontr s herein cannot 4 P5KJJ .- \" -'-r be renderr:d remediless agair-tst an order v.'h iih rs adverse to the ii,teiest ol parties 9, For all the aforesaid reasons. this Court is ir.ci;ined lo a-11i,ri'the instant Cir.il Re vision Petition. lhe o;:Cer cla:e d i 1.J9.2025 rn i.-i.No.il914 oi 2025 ir'l A S.S.R.l{a. i3832 t{ )C?.: rassei ar the Lliricf Jurige , Cir.--v Ciyii Court, at Hy'derabad. is herebl' set asrde. The i. jr.,Nc.39 1:l af 2025 in A.S.S.R-No.13832 oi 2021 siairds aliov.,e'J b1' i:oncl.onirB rhe de1a1, of (46) daJ's subject to pa-irnent cl cosrs of ,Rs.5,CO0i - tr1'the pet'rticnel-s to the District Legai Sen'ices i u'l1.r ct-it'" l -.,-hi:r a pc'i;,--,ii oi loiri: lC'1) u,eeks frorir to da-',. ';pon suct. r-eceipl oi pavrlent of cosls bv the petitioners, i:he F:rst Appeiiate Ccurt rn av t:-r;istel- the- appeal ali cecrrie :he s;lie l-r. ,ts ',i\Tr ,e Iifu' , e ,: :i:.iai rce r', ith la-n-. id. Accorrllng1].-, rhe Cr.-"il Revrsion Petitiorr slani:; ;.ilo';ed *'ith i'l')s1t 11, As a :rr'q:.;e1, ::rlscellaleo rls a,lolliicatirns p:rclrg ', .':-r:'. s1-';'i-11 ! .: r:i ' i '-i')cP'-j To, SD/- U.S A STRAR SSISTANT //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

1. The Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyde-rab1d. i. o; ci t" sRip pntu RAJ Advocate [oPUC] 3. Two CD CoPies [w NVB/PSL k I HIGH COURT DATED:1 411112025 ORDER CRP.No.3711 of 2025 I o(J 1HE S ;) 1g I 1il2t * .lIggio {+ *.? ALLOWING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITICN J-rsrf \,.