Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 348 (AP)

K. Vimalamma v. M. Budhi Sagar Reddy

2005-04-12

body2005
( 1 ) CHALLENGING the order dated 28-3-2005 passed in RA No. 273 of 2004 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Small causes Court, Hyderabad, wherein the order dated 31-8-2004 passed in IA No. 454 of 2004 in RC No. 451 of 2003 on the file of the I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad was confirmed, the present civil revision petition is filed under Section 22 of the andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and eviction) Control Act. ( 2 ) THE petitioner-respondent herein filed IA No. 454 of 2004 in RC No. 451 of 2003 under Section 11 (4) of the Andhra pradesh Rent Control Act seeking to stay all further proceedings in RC No. 451 of 2003 and to direct the respondents- petitioners herein to put him in possession of the petition schedule property and the same was allowed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners herein filed RA No. 273 of 2004 on the file of the Chief Judge, City small Causes Court, Hyderabad, and the same was dismissed confirming the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, hyderabad. Having aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition is filed. ( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that there was a delay of only one week in depositing the rents due to lack of knowledge about the order and therefore, the petitioners filed ia No. 485 of 2004 seeking to enlarge the time for complying with the orders of the learned Rent Controller by showing sufficient cause for non-compliance of the orders in time, but the learned Rent Controller dismissed the said petition, and hence, he prays to allow the petition to give an opportunity to contest the case. ( 4 ) ON the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that the extension of time under section 148 of CPC is not a matter of sympathy, but it has to be exercised judicially. Therefore, no sufficient cause is shown for the delay of one week in not depositing the rents. ( 5 ) AS seen from the allegations in the affidavit, the petitioners did not contact their Counsel to enquire about the case on 22-8-2004. They met the Counsel appearing for the respondent before the trial Court, who informed him about the orders passed by the learned Rent Controller. ( 5 ) AS seen from the allegations in the affidavit, the petitioners did not contact their Counsel to enquire about the case on 22-8-2004. They met the Counsel appearing for the respondent before the trial Court, who informed him about the orders passed by the learned Rent Controller. Therefore, by the time they contacted the Advocate, the time for depositing of the rents has already been expired. Therefore, the petitioners filed an application seeking to enlarge the time and consequently, there was a delay of seven days. ( 6 ) THE learned Counsel for the respondent relied on a decision in Sayeda akthar v. Abdul Ahad, 2003 (2) RCJ 19 (SC), wherein it was held as under :"the Court does not extend time or condone the delay or mere sympathy. Discretion is to be exercised judicially and on a finding of existence of sufficient cause. "there is no dispute about the proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court. The sufficient cause is not defined under the civil Procedure Code or Limitation Act. But, there should be a sufficient cause or reason, which is beyond the control of the party invoking the provisions under section 148 of CPC or under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The specific case of the petitioners is that they were not aware of passing of the order. They came to know about the orders only on 22-8-2004. Immediately thereafter, they filed a petition to enlarge the time for complying with the orders of the Court. In that process, there was a delay of one week in depositing the rents as ordered by the trial Court. ( 7 ) IN the circumstances of the case, i am of the view that the delay as narrated by the petitioners cannot be construed to be wanton or deliberate or intentional. The learned Appellate Judge did not consider this aspect in right perspective and hence, the order under challenge suffers from manifest error of law and the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is allowed. The order impugned herein, is set aside. No order as to costs.