The High Court · 2025

...Respondents/Respondent No.3/Defendant No.1 and 2 5 Smt. Rukkamma, Wo. Late Navari Ramchandra Redd. Aged about 72 years, Occ-Household, R/o. H.No.2-26, Tellapur Village, Ramachnadrapuram Mandal, Sanga Reddy District K.Uma Rani, Wo Ravi Kiran Reddy, D/o. Late N.Ramachandra Reddy, aged about 54 years, Occ-Household, R/o. H.No.2-26, Tellapur Village, Ramachnadrapuram lVlandal, Sanga Reddy District 7 Jagan lt/ohan Reddy (died per Lrs B to 1 0)

8. Smt.Anitha, Wo. Late Jagan t\rtohan Reddy, Aged about 44 years, Occ- Household, R/o. Villa No.260, Rajapushpa Grreendale, Tellapur, Ramachnadrapuram, Sangaredd! District. I Nikhil Reddy, S/o Late Jagan Mohan Reddy, Aged about 30 years, Occ- Business, R/o. Villa No.260, Rajapushpa Gireendale, Tellapui, Ramachnadrapuram, Sangareddy Disirict. 10 Nkitha,. O{q !qt-" Jagan Mohan Reddy, Aged about2Z years, Occ-student, R/o Villa.No 260,. Rajapushpa Grreendale, Tellapur, Ramach'nadrapuram, Sangareddy District. (Respondents No 2 to 10 not necessary parties in this case) ...Respondents/Respondents No.4 to 10 lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in pursuance to the order in l.A. No. 350 of 2019 in o.s. No. 65 of 2016 on the file of I Additional District Judge Sangareddy, pending disposal of the above revision. Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri M Rammohan Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Sri P Venkat Reddy The Court made the following: ORDER Dr.GRR, J crp_3714 _2021 THE HONOURABLE DT. JUSTTCE G.RADHA RANT CML REVISION PETITION No.3714 of 2024 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/respondent No.7-Legal Representative of respondent No. I /plaintiff aggrieved by the order dated 21.10.2024 in I.A No.350 of 2019 in O.S No.65 of 2016 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Sangareddy District.

2. I.A No.350 of 2019 was filed by the defendant No.3 to condone the delay of (242) days in filing the petition to set aside the judgment and decree dated24.07.2018 in O.S No.65 of 2016.

3. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for declaration of title in respect of the agricultural land bearing Sy.No.447lE3l2, admeasuring Ac. 1-01 gunta, situated at Tellapur Village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Sangareddy District and for the consequential relief of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. The said suit was decreed ex-parte on 24.07.2018. The defendant No.3 filed I.A No.350 of 2019 to condone the delay of (242) days in filing the petition to set aside the ex-parte decree and judgment in O.S No.65 of 2016 dated 24.07.2018. As per the affidavit filed by the Manager of the defendant No.3- Company. The defendant No.3 was not served with summons in the suit. Dr.GRR, J tp_3714 2024 The plaintiff deliberately furnished wrong address in the suit to avoid 2 service of summons on defendant No.3. Though, summons were ordered on 13.04.2017. the ptaintiffdid not choose to deposit the process fee on any subsequent dates till 23.01.2018, and mischievously got the suit posted on 23.03.2018 for steps and caused publication of summons through substitute service by carrying publication in Janatha News Paper, which was not in wide circulation in the local area. As such, the defendant No.3 was not aware of the suit and could not appear in the suit. There was no occasion for the defendant No.3 to know about the proceedings in the above suit. He came to know about the suit and decree passed therein on 19.02.2019 through the villagers. Immediately, he got verified the records and came to know about the ex-parte -iudgment and decree dated 24.07.2018 and applied for certified copies on the very next day. The certified copies were fumished on25.03.2019.

3.1. It was further submitted that the petitioner-Company was a registered AGPA holder of Dl and D2 and also have Development Agreement-Cum-GPA's in its favour from subsequent purchasers. Unless the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 24.07.2018 made in the above suit was set aside and it was permitted to contest the suit by filing its written statement therein, it would suffer irreparable loss and hardship.

4. The legal representatives of the plaintiff f.iled counter contending that the plaintiff deposited process for issuing summons to the \ Dr.GRR,.I up 3714 024 defendants befbre the Court but the detbndant No.3 intentionally avoided , receiving the summons. Alter giving sufficient opportunity, the Court gave paper publication. The publication was also given in a largest circulated News Paper. The defendant No.3 was set ex-parte, after giving sufficient opportunity and passed the decree in favour of the plaintiff and prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. The triat Court vide the impugned order allowed the application filed by the defendant No.3 on costs of Rs.5,000/- payable to the plaintitT by 20. I 1.2024. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent No.7, the legal representatives of respondent No.l/plaintiff preferred this C.R.P.

6. Heard Sri M.Rarnmohan, ieamed counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent - defendant No.i.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the leamed judge recorded a finding in para No.9 of the impugned order that summons u,ere serv'ed on the respondent - defendant No.3 by way of publication and ex-parte decree was passed on 29.06.2018. In such, scenario reckoning the delay lrorn the date of alleged knowledge o[ the decree but not from the date of decree was illegal and unsustainable. The delay was condoned without recording any finding regarding sufficient cause and prayed to set aside the order passed by the learned I Dr.GRR, J crp 3714 2024 Additional District Judge, Sangareddy in I.A No.350 of 2019 in O.S .l No.65 of 2016 dated 2l .10.2024

8. Learned counsel for the respondent dei'endant No.3 vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the leamed counsel for the petitioner contending that the whole process adopted by the petitioner - plaintiff in not serving summons on the defendant No.3 was defective. The plaintiff deliberately gave old address of the defendant No.3, though, he was aware of his current address. The petitioner plaintiff had not deposited the process fee before the Court for issuing summons to the defendants and filed the docket proceedings of the I Additional District Judge, Medak, Sangareddy District in O.S No.65 of 2016 dated

13.04.2017, 08.06.20 1 7, 08.08.20 I 7, I 3. r 0.20 I 7, 1 3. l 1.20 r 7, B.At.20t8 in support of his contention

8.1. He further contended that as per the docket order dated 23-03.2018, the plaintiff managed to take steps against Dl to D3 and filed a steps petition on 01.05.2018 and got published the same in Janatha News Paper, which was not widely circulated and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in N.Balakrishnan Vs. M.Krishnamurthyr and of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at ' ( t998) 7 scc t:t Dr.GRR, J crp_3714_2021 Atnaravati in Chinthapanti Somasekhar Reddy Vs. Yangareddy ) Madhusudhan Reddvr.

9. Perused the record as well as the docket proceedings filed by the learned counsel fbr the respondent - defendant No.3. The docket proceedings dated 13.04.2017, 08.06.2017, 08.08.2017, 13.10.2017,

13.l1.2017 ,23.0 I .20 I 8 would disclose that process fee was not deposited by the plaintilf to issue summons to Dl to D3. Without depositing the process fee and without service of summons on Dl to D3 through the Couft/Process Server, the docket order dated 23.03.2018 would disclose that steps were ordered against Dl to D3 and on 01.05.2018, the plaintiff filed steps petition under Order 5 Rule 20 read with Section 151 of C.P.C and publication was ordered, to noti$, Dl to D3 by way of substitute service by way of publication in Janatha News Paper. I 0. The contention of the leamed counsel for the plaintiff was that service of summons by way of publication was also a valid service. As such, the trial Courl committed an eror in reckoning the delay from the date of alleged knowledge of the decree but not from the date of decree. The trial Court noted that it was settled law that in a catena of .ludgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble High Court, it was held that where summons were caused through substitute service by way olpaper publication and where the defendant had no knowledge about the 2 2024 S.C Onl.inc AP ]5,15 6 Dr.GRR, J crp 3714 2024 date of hearing, delay has to be calculated from the date of knowledge and holding that an opportunity need to be given to the defendant No'3 to prove his contentions on merits allowed the petition filed by the defendant No.3 to condone the delay on payment of costs' As per the leamed counsel for the respondent - defendant No'3 costs were also paid by him.

11. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in N'BalakrishnanVs'M.Krishnamurthy(1-supra),itwasheldthat "^n "g. It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the court. Section 5 of the Limitatioo Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter' acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion Sometimes delay of rhe shortesl range may be uncondonable due to rvant of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases delay of very long be condoned as the explanatioll thereof is satisfactory'' .ung" OnJe the court accepts the explanation as sufficient it is thc restrit of positive er.ercise of discretion and normally the superior court should not disturb such finding, much less in revisional jurisdiction, unless the exercise of discretion was on rvholly untenable grounds or arbitrary or perverse: But it is a different matter when the first Court refuses to condone the dela''- ln such cases, the superior Court would be free to consider the cause shown for the delay afresh and it is open to such superior court to come to its own finding even untrammeled by the conclusion of the lower court." [0. The reason for such a different stance is thus: "I'he primary function of a court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial j rstice Time limit fixed for approaching the court in different situations in not because on the expiry of such time a bad cause rvould transfonn into a good cause." "ll. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the righSof parties. fhe) are mcanl to see that parties do not resort to dilatory 7 Dr.GRR, J crp 3714_2024 tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. Law of limitation fixes a life-span for such Iegal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and the wasted time would never revisit. During efflux of time newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons lo seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a life span musl be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. Law ol limitation is thus founded on public policy. tt is enshrined in the maxim interest reipublicae up sit fnis litium (il is for the general wellare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time." "12.A court knows that relusal to condone delay would result -Ihere is no foreclosing a suitor kom putting forth his cause. presumption that delay in approaching the court is always deliberate. This Court has held that the words "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Lirnitation Act should receive a Iiberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide Shakuntala Devi Jain Vs. Kuntal Kumari [AlR 1969 SC 575] and State of West Bengal Vs. The Administrator, Howrah Municipality [AIR 1972 SC 749)." I I

12. It is settled law that the length ofdelay is not the criteria but sufficiency of the cause of the delay is the criteria to condone the delay. As the record would disclose that no summons were issued to the defendant through the process of the Court and the only mode of service on defendants is by way of paper publication and the same was also published not in a widely circulated News Paper, the trial Court rightly allowed the petition filed by the respondent-defendant No.3 for condonation of delay that too on payment of costs, which was already DT.GRR,J crp-37 14 _2024 complied by the respondent - defendant No.3. This Court does not find n I any itlegality in the order of the trial Court to set aside the same.

13. [n the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the order of the leamed I Additional District Judge, Sangareddy District in I.A No.350 of 2019 in O.S No.65 of 2016 dated 2 t.10.2024.No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending shall stand closed. \ To, ,,TRUE COPY// Sd,- A.V.S. PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

1. The I Additional District Judge Sangareddy 2. One CC to Sri M Rammohan, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri P Venkat Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies ADI(gh s i I , I HIGH COURT DATED:0310112025 ORDER CRP.No.3714 of 2024 a SIA,( o o 28 JAti m C .L t PA Tc * DISMISSING THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS @i4%