Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 739 (TS)

Y. Srinivasulu v. Prameela

2020-10-19

T.AMARNATH GOUD

body2020
JUDGMENT T. Amarnath Goud, J. - This Civil Revision Petition, under Section 151 CPC was directed against the order dated 22.08.2019 passed in I.A.No.142 of 2017 in A.S.No.8 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the Judge, Family Court-cum-VII Additional District Judge, Medak, at Sangareddy, wherein and whereby the appellate Court dismissed the said I.A. filed by the petitioners. 2. Petitioners herein are appellants before the court below. They assailed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court i.e. Senior Civil Judge, Zaheerabad, made in O.S.No.58 of 2009, which was filed by the first respondent herein, seeking partition of schedules A to C properties therein into four equal shares and allotment of one such share and separate possession of the property to her. The said suit was decreed ex-parte, vide judgment dated 09.4.2012 as the petitioners could not pursue the case in spite of several adjournments being given. Aggrieved by the said ex-parte decree and judgment, the petitioners herein filed A.S.No.8 of 2015 before the appellate Court. However, the appeal was dismissed for default on 02.01.2017. Subsequently, the petitioners filed a petition praying the appellate Court to restore the said appeal. However, as there was a delay of 312 days in filing the said restoration petition, petitioners filed I.A.No.142 of 2017 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the said delay of 312 days in filing the restoration petition, which, eventually was dismissed, vide order dated 22.08.2019. Hence the present Civil Revision Petition. But as there was delay of 50 days in presenting the present Civil Revision Petition, petitioners filed I.A.No.2 of 2020 to condone the said delay in filing the Civil Revision Petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. 4. The contention of the petitioners is that they could not represent the matter because of the old age ailments of the second petitioner and as such she could not contact their counsel in order to pursue the case before the court below. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the ratio laid down in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Ors. Vs. Katiji and Ors., (1987) AIR SC 1353 , Penneru Veera Raghava Rao vs. Penneru Ravi and Ors., (2002) 6 ALD 152 and N. Dharmaiah and Ors. Vs. D. Annapurna and Ors., (2000) 6 ALD 68 . 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the ratio laid down in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Ors. Vs. Katiji and Ors., (1987) AIR SC 1353 , Penneru Veera Raghava Rao vs. Penneru Ravi and Ors., (2002) 6 ALD 152 and N. Dharmaiah and Ors. Vs. D. Annapurna and Ors., (2000) 6 ALD 68 . 5. The ratio laid down in all the above cases is that the Legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting Section 5 (Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the CPC, 1908, may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period) of the Indian Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on 'merits'. 6. As seen from the record, may be the second petitioner is an old lady and suffering from some old age ailments, but the other petitioners are young persons and are hale and healthy. The conduct of the petitioners, right from the trial court seems that they are negligent in pursuing the case, because suit itself was decreed ex-parte and against the said ex-parte judgment and decree, the petitioners filed appeal before the appellate court and allowed the said appeal dismissed for default. Again seeking to restore the said appeal, the petitioners filed a restoration petition with delay of 312 days. As the said petition was dismissed, the petitioners filed the present Civil Revision Petition. Therefore, it is manifest from the record that the petitioners are negligent to pursue the case since even this Civil Revision Petition was also filed with a delay of 50 days, which was sought to be condoned by way of I.A.No.2 of 2020. More so, the petitioners have not convincingly established that only because of the old age ailments of the second petitioner, they could not pursue the case. No cogent documentary proof in support thereof was also filed to establish the said reason. In such circumstances, the appellate Court has rightly dismissed the petition. 7. The Court should not allow the condone delay petitions casually unless there is a convincing and well explained reason for not filing the case in time. No cogent documentary proof in support thereof was also filed to establish the said reason. In such circumstances, the appellate Court has rightly dismissed the petition. 7. The Court should not allow the condone delay petitions casually unless there is a convincing and well explained reason for not filing the case in time. In the case on hand, the petitioners have not established sufficient cause for not preferring the application within the period of time. I see no reason much less valid and convincing reason to condone the delay of 50 days in filing the present Civil Revision Petition. Hence the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners have no application to the facts and circumstances of the case. The appellate Court has considered all these aspects in right perspective and passed the impugned order, which does not warrant interference of this Court under Section 151 CPC. 8. In the result, I.A.No.2 of 2020 is dismissed. Consequently Civil Revision Petition No.900 of 2020 also stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Civil Revision Petition shall also stand dismissed.