Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 399 (TS)

S. Yamini Vally v. Sashi Kumar Khanna

2022-06-17

P.SREE SUDHA

body2022
ORDER : 1. This civil revision petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 19.12.2019 passed in I.A.No.816 of 2016 in O.S.No.848 of 2012 on the file of the learned VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. 2. The petitioners herein are defendant Nos.2 and 18 in the suit. They filed an application viz., I.A.No.816 of 2016 in the suit under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking to condone the delay of 88 days in filing the petition to set aside the order. In fact, O.S.No.848 of 2012 was filed for declaration of title and for injunction. The petitioners herein could not cross-examine P.W.1 and as such they were set ex parte on 20.01.2016. Thereafter, the matter was posted for arguments on 01.02.2016 and judgment was passed on 22.02.2016. The petitioners would further state that the first petitioner is staying at Vijayanagaram and the second petitioner is staying at Hyderabad. Due to the ill health they could not contact their counsel and the counsel not even applied for certified copies and on their instructions the counsel applied for certified copy on 21.04.2016 and the same was received on 13.05.2016 and collected the same on 08.06.2016 and contacted the counsel on 12.06.2016 and then filed a petition to condone the delay of 88 days but the said application was dismissed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same they preferred the present Civil Revision Petition with the delay of 223 days. 2. Even in the application the second petitioner would state that he is aged 62 years suffering from old age ailments and doctors advised not to travel and as such there was a delay of 223 days. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents would state that the inordinate delay of seven months and thirteen days is not explained properly and in fact the present revision is preferred against the dismissal of delay condonation petition of 88 days. As there is no due diligence on the part of the petitioners, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. Whereas the petitioners herein contended that a reasonable opportunity may to be given to them for contesting the matter. They could not cross-examine P.W.1 and as such ex parte judgment was passed in favour of the respondents herein. 5. As there is no due diligence on the part of the petitioners, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. Whereas the petitioners herein contended that a reasonable opportunity may to be given to them for contesting the matter. They could not cross-examine P.W.1 and as such ex parte judgment was passed in favour of the respondents herein. 5. Now it is for this Court to see whether there is any justification to condone the delay in preferring the revision. Petitioners 1 and 2 herein are defendants 2 and 18 in the suit. Admittedly, they know about the pendency of the suit but could not cross-examine P.W.1 in spite of granting sufficient opportunity and as such they were set ex parte on 20.01.2016 itself. They stated that they came to know about the same subsequently. It is for them to pursue the litigation with due diligence. When once they have knowledge about the pendency of the suit, they cannot simply contend that they have not contacted the counsel and do not know about the proceedings as they were residing at Vijayanagaram and Hyderabad respectively. As the second petitioner is residing at Hyderabad at least he ought to have pursued the litigation properly. This clearly shows that they are negligent and therefore there is a delay of 88 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte judgment passed by the trial Court. Moreover, when they preferred revision against the said order at least they should file it within the time but, for the same reasons stated by them there is delay of 223 days in filing the revision and the reasons stated by them for the abnormal delay is neither convincing not satisfactory. The Courts will not help the parties who sleep over the matter for a long time. Though the petitioners stated that they have health issues, nothing prevented them to contact the counsel and give instructions over phone. 6. In the light of the above, this Court finds that there are no merits in the revision and the same is accordingly dismissed. 7. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall also dismissed in the light of this final order.