The High Court · 2025

2. M. Gopala Krishna, S/o. Not known to plaintiff, Aged about- 54 years, Occ- Business, R/o. 1-2-45311, Domalaguda, Street No. 1, Hyderabad.

3. B. Mallamma, Wo. M. Prabhakar Reddy, Aged about- 56 years, Occ- Govt. Servant, R/o. Flat No. 112, &vi.Apartments, Ayodhiya Nagar, Mehidipatnarn, Hyderabad.

4. Geetha Laxmi, Wo. Ganesh, Aged about- 5't years, Occ- Govt. Servant, R/o. Buddha Purnima, Apartrnents, B.S. Makta, Begumpet, Hyderabad.

5. G. Gayatri, Wo. M. Gopalla Krishna, Aged about 51 years, Occ Household, R/o. Ftat No: 402, Sai Kiran Apartments, Hirgayathnagar, Hyderabad. ..Respo ndents/Defendants Petition under Article 227 ofthe Constitution of lndia, Aggrieved by order dated 1210612018 passed l.A. No. 124312016 in OS No. 1 45812010, on the file of Prl. Senior Civil Judge, R R District at L B Nagar, Hyderabad CIVIL REVISION NOs: 5037 OF 20{8: Between:

1. Shriram Reddy S/o. M. Pulla Reddy, Aged about 40 years, Occ. Business, R/o. 4-3-31/2, Nehru Ganj, Tandur, Ranga Reddy District. Bqlq*rE !:!sf--'-=r'

2. A. Prade,ep Kumar, s/o. A. Jayarami Reddy, Aged about 31 years, occ Business' R/o' 2-1-388' Nallakunta' Hyderabad' AND ...petitionerslpraintiffs

1. (astri Krishna, a1d 4 others, s/o, K. Shankaraiah, Aged about- s0 years, occ- Agriculture, R/o. Puppalaguda Village, Rajendranagdr Mandal, R.R. Disti.ict. 2. M. GopalaIl'sln?,, 9/9, tlot known to plaintiff, Aged about- 54 years, occ- Business, P./o. 1-2-45311, Domalaguda, Street'No-. 1, Hyderabad,

3. B. Mallamma,, wo. M. Prabhakar Reddy, Aged about- s6 yearc, occ- Govt. p.ervan!, rvo. Flat No. 112, Devi ApartmentslRyodhiya Nalar, Mehidipatnam, Hyderabad.

4. Qeqt[ra !axn1i,, wo. Ganeslr,{ggd qbgut- 51 years, occ- Govt. servant, Rl/o. Buddha F,urnima, Apartments, B.S. Makta, Bejump6t, Hyderabid.

5. G. Gayatri,,Vg. M. Gopallar(ishna, Aged about- 51 yearc, occ- Household, R/o. Flat :r,lo. 402, sai Kiran Apartmentsl Himayathnaghr, Hiderabad. Petition under Articre 2zr orthe constitution :ffi, il::::ffi: order dated 1216118 passed in lA No. 1242t16 in OS No. 14S8/iO on the fite of the Prl senior c;ivil Judge, RR District, at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad. tA tto: t or zotr Petition under order xxxrx rure 1&z of cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the iletition, the High Court may be prleased to grant injunclion restraining the respondbnts and their henchmen frorn interfering with the petitioner's- peaceful enjoyment and possession of the suit schedule pr.operty. Gounsel for the Petitioners: Mr. v VENKATA MAyuR, Advocate counsel for the Respondents: Mr KV.RAMA RAo, Advocate representing Mr RAKESH SANGHI, Advocate The Court made the following: COMUON ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSTNG RAO NAI\DIKONDA Civil Revision Petition Nos.5027 & 5037 of 2018 COMMON ORDER r The present Civil Revision Petitions have been filed by the petitioners under article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the orders, dated

12.06.2018, passed in I.A.Nos.l242 & 1243 of 2016 in O.S.No.t458 of 2010 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar.

2. Heard Mr.V.Venkata Mayur, learned counsel for the petitioners / plaintiffs and Mr.Rakesh Sanghi, learned counsel for respondentVdefendants.

3. The petitioners/plaintiffs filed the suit vide O.S.No.l458 of 2010 seeking perpetual injunction against the respondents/defendants. The defendants therein contested the suit and filed their wriuen statement. The matter was posted for evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs on 17.11.2015 and on the said date, the plaintiffs could not appear and the suit was dismissed for default. Being aggrieved by the same, an interlocutory application was filed vide I.A.No.l242 of 2016 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying the court to condone the delay of 366 days in frling the petition under Order IX Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure 2 along with another interlocutory application vide I.A.No.1243 of 2016 praying the court to set asid,o the order of dismissal of the suig dated 17.tl.zols.

4. Havirqg heard the learned counsel on either side, the leamed trial court has dismissed the applications and hetd that the plaintiffs are unable to show valid reasons and suflicient cause to condone the delay of 366 days.

5. Havinll perused the entire material placed on record, it is a case where the petitioners/trlaintiffs have filed a suit for perpetual injunction and could not appear on the drrte when the matter was posted for trial. As it is seen that the said suit is pertaininl3 to the year 2010 and it was only for a bare per-petual injunction and as the m;rtter was posted after long five years on l7.lt.z0t5, for commencement of trial, it appears that inspite of the fact that the suit is being pending for more than five years, the petitioners/plaintiffs could not get ready with the suit, besides that, the reasons which are cited by the petitioners/plaintiffs for their non-apPearance on the said date was that "they could not appear before the court because they are in real estate business for the last ten years and as they were in financial crises for the last one year and due to other family problems, and as such they cotrld not attend the court", due to which the suit was dismissed and they came to know about the dismissal only after 366 days. Hence, they filed the present applications 3

6. Even on perusal of the affidavit filed along with these applications shows that on 17.11.2015 the matter was posted not only for leading evidence but also to proceed with the trial with a condition of imposing of Cost of Rs.50/-, even after that also, it appears that they have absented and did not proced with the trial, as such, the suit was dismissed for default.

7. Though the petitioners/plaintiffs contends that due to financial crises and other family problems they could not attend the matter on 17.11.2015; whereas it shows that there are two plaintiffs who belongs to trvo different addresses and no reasons as to why the petitioner No.2 could not make any efforts and prosecute his case.

8. Considering the reasons cited by the petitionerVplaintiffs for r\. \- condonation of delay of 366 day and the law having been settled that a liberal approach has to be taken in cases of condonation of delays, but simultaneously, where the reasons which are cited are not satisfactory, the question of condoning the delay and taking liberal view does not arise. [n the present case, the reasons. which are cited appears to be very casual and I do not see any ground to extend a liberal approach for condoning the delay and the trial court has rightly dismissed the applications and this Court also not inclined to disturb the said finding of the 4 trial court and there are no grounds made out in these civil revision petitions to interfere with tlre impugned orders passed by the learned trial court.

9. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitionerVplaintiffs contends that as the suit is for perpetual injunction, no prejudice would be caused if the petition is dismissed with a liberty to serk appropriate relief, in case of any such over tact is committed by the respondentVdefendants.

10. Accordingly, these civil revision petitions deserve to be and are accordingly dismissed with the liberty as sought for. There shall be no order as to costs. To, Miscella:neous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed. SD/- A.JAYASREE ,,TRUE COPY" SECTION OFFICER

1. The Prirrcipal Senior Civil Judge, R R District at L B Nagar, Hyderabad 2. One CC to SRI. V VENKATA MAYUR Advocate IOPUCI 3. One CC to Mr KV.RAMA RAO, Advocate representing Mr RAKESH SANGHI, Advocate IOPUCI

4. Two CD Copies RC/PSL \+ HIGH COURT DATEDi 2611112025 I a ORDER CRP.No.5027 & 5037 of 2018 I frx" .B C)() 0 5 iiAfi iill * * Accordingly, Both the Civil Revision Petition is Dismissed for No Costs. G ,SA &*