The High Court · 2025

4. Smt.Swapna,, W/o. Nagi Reddy, D/o Rana Reddy, Aged 29 years, Occ. Household, R/o. Siddhapuram Village, Sadashivapet Mandal, tt/edak District. ...Respondents /Petitioners No.1,3 and 4/Defendant Nos. '1,3 and 4 (Respondents No. 2 to 4 are not necessary parties) lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 15'1 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 further proceedings in O.S.No.'170 of 2003 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Vikarabad, Vikarabad District, pending disposal of the main C,R.P. Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Narendar Jalli Counsel for the Respondents : Sri P.Lakshma Reddy The Court made the following : ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE IION'BLE JUSTICE B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO CwIL REVISION PETITION No.3716 of 2023 DATED THE 16th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 Between: Smt. Roopavathi, W/o: Narsimha Reddy And Smt. Geethanjali, W/o: Nagabhusanam and others Petitioner Respondcnts ORDER:

1. This Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated

03.10.2023 passed in I.A.No.73 of 2O2O in O.S.No.170 of 2003 by the Iearned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Vikarabad, Vikaratrad District.

2. Petitioner herein is petitioner No.2-defendant No.2, respondent No. t herein is respondent-plaintiff and respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein are the petitioner Nos. 1,3 and 4-defendant Nos.l,3 and 4 in I.A.No.73 of 2O2O in O.S.No. 17O of 2OO3.

3. Respondent No. 1-plaintiff has filed suit for partition of agriculture lands bearing Sy.Nos.2 1 /A, 5218, 121 / A, 129, 139 and 23, admeasuring Ac.0-31 gts., Ac.1-35 gts., Ac.4-27 gts., Ac.7-31 gts., Ac.6-39 gts., and Ac.l-27 gts., respectively situated at \ \ 2 BRMR..I (lRP. No-3716 of 2023 Gangrada villzrge, Nawabpet Mandal, Vikaraba c Districl-, u'ilh specific boundzir ies, against respondent Nos.2 t<r and petitioner herein.

4. Respondcnt No.2-defendant No. t has hled his ,, rirten statement on 20.O7.2OO4 contending that respondent No.1-pJz .ntiff was not in possession of suit schedule properties at any poin c,f time and the properties are not joint family properties. Defen j 1nt Nos.2 to 4 (petitioner and respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein) I L, r.e adopt ed the written statcmcrlt of defendant No. 1.

5. As the defendants in the suit did not co I ost the matter thereby the learned trial Court has decreed the su r or partition in favor of responclent No. l-plaintiff stating that he is r ntitled for 1/Srh share in the sllrt schedule property.

6. Defendant Nos. I to 4 in the suit have < cllectivelv filed I.A.No.73 of 2O2O in O.S.No.170 of 2OO3 unc1,: Section 5 of Limitation Act, 19O8 to condone the delay of 3897 j r.r,s in irling the petition to set aside the ex parte decree, dated 03.03 i t)09.

7. It is stated in the affrdavit that the suit sched I (. properties do not belongs to the plaintiff and defendants in thr suit, but, they belongs to the other persons, who are related to th: r and the said persons asked the plaintiff-respondent No.1 herein a L rut the liling of BRMR,J CRP.No.3716 of 2023 3 the suit. Plaintiff (respondent No.I herein) has approached the defendants and other persons, who are the owners of some of the properties in the suit schedule land, informed before them that she will withdraw the suit, u,hich was filed by her against the defendants in respect of the suit schedule properties. Due to u'hich the pe titioners-de fendants have not proceeded with the main case and the respondent No. 1-plaintiff instead of withdrawing the suit has proceeded further and obtained ex porte decree. They came to knou' about [he ex parte decree when summons were received in the final decree proceedings. They approached the counsel and verihed the records and thereafter they f,r1ed the present application to condone the delay of 3897 days in hling the application to set aside the ex parte decree, dated 03.03.2OO9.

8. Respondent No.1-plaintiff has f,rled his counter in the I.A. contending that the petitioner-petitioner No.2-defendant No.2 along with respondent Nos.2 to 4-petitioner Nos.l, 3 and 4-defendants have filed the written statement and they are aware of the suit proceeding. As they failed to appear before the learned trial Court, ex parte decree came to be passed on 03.03.2009- The petitioner- defendant No.2 has not made out any grounds to condone the delay of 3897 days and day to day delay is not explained and prayed to dismiss the application. \ \ \ 4 BRMR,J (lRP.No.371 6 of 2023

9. The learned trail Court after going througl the material on record has dismissed the application holding thrr the petitioners therein (respondent No.2, petitioner and responde rt Nos.3 and 4 herein) have not made out any case to condone rLe delay of 3897 days.

9.1. Learned senior counsel lor the petitioner r; rltmits that the learned trial Court ought to have seen that the :t:litioners, rights accrued over the suit schedule lands by virtue of t I : gift settlement deed dated 26 05.2001 uide document bearing I\ r .2565 of 2001, which was executed b1. the father of the petitione - i.e., Iate Banur Rangareddy (defendant No.1). The learned tria[ Corr t ought to have considered the request of the petitioners thercir as they were seriously affected and more so the land in Sy.No. M to an extent of Ac.7-O3 gts., was already sold out to third parties, ,.ri such none of them were joined as proper and necessary parties r. the suit. The learned trial Court ought to have seen that the sujt s;chedule lands were given in gift in favour of the petitioner and t 1 )./ ll,ere already mutated on her name in the revenue records as ear I . as in the year

9.2. The iearned trial Court ought not to have reje: r:d I.A.No.73 of 2020 as the petitiolters' interest is very much ir t:xistence. The '/ BRMR,J CRP.No.3716 ot 2023 5 learned trial Court ought to have seen that the father of the petitioner died on 05.1i.2019 and in fact, no ltnal decree is passed in O.S.No.170 of 2OO3 till 29.10.2014. Counsel to substantiate his contentions has relied on the decision in the case of Thottempudi Krishna Prasad and another v. Anne Srinivasa Rao and othersl and prayed to set aside the impugned order.

10. Learned counsel for respondent No.l-plaintiff submils that petitioncr has not assigned any reasons to condone the delay of 3897 days. Learned Trial Court has properly appreciated the contenLions ol the parties and rightly dismissed the application and n<r interference is called for.

11. Latest judgment of the Hontrle Supreme Court in Shivamma (dead) by LRs v. Karnataka Housing Board and others2, observed at paragraph Nos.39 and 40, which reads as under: "39. Thus, rve have no hesitation in saying that both the expressions, by a necessary implication indicate that the phrase 'within such period" signihes that the period covered therein extends to not only the original period within which, the appeal or the application, as the case may be, should have been filed, if not for the delay, but also the period taken in addition to the prescribed period of limitation for filing such appeal or apptication, as the case may be.

40. As such, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for the purpose of seeking condoaatiort of delay iii filing ofan appcal oi appticatiod, as the case may be, beyond the stipulated period of limitation, the delay in the filing has to be explained by demonstrating the existence of a "sufficient cause' that resulted in such delay for both the prescribed period of limitation as-well as the period after the expiry of limitation, up to actual date of hling of such appeal or application, as the case | 2079 (4J ALD 219 2 2025 Livel-aw (SC) 899 \ 6 BRMR,J CRP.No.37I6 of 2023 may be, or to put it simply, explanation has to be giv, I for the entire duration lrom the date when the ctock of limitation t) rj an to tick, up until the date of actual filing, for seeking condonat r e of delay b1. recourse to section 5 0f the Limitation Act."

12. Record goes to show that defendant No.l I -,:spondent No.2 herein) has fiied his rvritten sratement on 20.C,l .t2004, which is adopted by other delendzrnts (petitioner and respor,, t:nt Nos.3 and 4 herein). It goes to shou, rhat the parties are aware r the suit filed by respondent No. 1 -responden t- plaintiff. The affidavit ited in I.A.No.73 of 2O2O reads that respondent No.l-responc t nl-piaintiff has informed them that she will withdraw the suit. Adnr t:edly, petitioner has not assigned any reasons in the afhdavit in I. \ to condone the delay of 3897 days exccpt stating that they u,err: r rder a premise that the suit might havc been rvithdrawn.

13.. In Thottempudi Krishna prasadl delay c f 3160 days is condoned in filing the restoration petition for appointment of Advocate commissioner to ascertain mesne profits r : minors interest is involved in the joint family property. The far r; in the above decision are distinguishable from the facts of the r-()sent case and ratio Iaid down therein u,ould not apply in the presc I. case.

14. Affidavit is silent before whom respondent No. I _plaintiff agreed to withdraw the suit. The Iearned trial Court i -.: its order at paragraph Nos. 9,.jg.12 has elaborately discussed v.: _J-r rcgard to the ./ I w 7 BRMR,J CRP.No.37l6 of 2023 contentions raised therein and rightly arrived at a conclusion that the petitioners therein have not assigned any reasons to condone the delay of 3897 days much less the day to day delay is not explained

15. Petitioner has not made out any case to in[erfere with thc order passed by the learned trial Court. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly, dismissed.

16. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs ., Intcrim order/ s if any shall stand vacated. Miscellaneous petition/ s shall stand closed. SD/- T. SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The Principal Junior Civil J udge-cum-J ud icial Magrstrate of First Class at Vikarabad. Vikarabad District'

2. One CC to Sri Narendar Jalli, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri P.Lakshma Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4 Two CD CoPies W Svs/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:1 611212025 t * C) ( 1- Sia it 71126 s ..L ? Ocsr r1 -: ORDER CRP.No.3716 of 2023 DISMISSING THE CRP h{,

7..