Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 403 (AP)

Kondisetty Sujathamma v. Rajanala Radhamma

2024-03-28

NYAPATHY VIJAY

body2024
ORDER : 1. The present civil revision petition is filed against the order dated 20.01.2017 in I.A. No. 265 of 2015 in O.S. No. 80 of 2008 passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Railway Kodur. 2. Petitioner is the plaintiff and the suit was filed for declaration of title and delivery of possession. The respondents made their appearance in the suit and filed their written statement. As the petitioner failed to lead the evidence, the suit was dismissed for default on 07.06.2011. The plaintiff subsequently filed I.A. No. 265 of 2015 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 1561 days in filing the petition to set aside the default order. The said application was opposed by the respondents and the trial Court after considering the respective contentions, dismissed the application. Hence, the present revision is filed. 3. Heard Sri M.S.P. Kamaraju, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.S. Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents. 4. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was taking treatment in Raja Ortho Care Centre, Tirupathi for pain to spinal card and Xerox copies of medical reports from 24.07.2011 to 22.07.2015 issued by Dr. A.L.V. Raja Sekhar Rao, Tirupathi were filed along with the petition. It was also contended that the petitioner is a diabetic patient and was taking treatment from Dr. Shyam Prasad, Hyderabad and was also suffering acute ulcer and was taking treatment in Sri Krishna Super Specialty Hospital, Tirupathi. It was on account of these reasons, the petitioner could not attend the Court and hence sought to set aside the order of the trial Court and restore the suit. 5. The trial Court had noted that the petitioner took treatment only as an outpatient on various dates and was never admitted into the hospital for treatment and this finding of the trial court was not disputed by the counsel for the petitioner. Apart from that, the ailments which have been mentioned are not such which would restrain the petitioner from diligently prosecuting her case. Even otherwise, nothing precluded the petitioner from filing the chief-affidavit through her advocate and submitting herself to cross-examination through a Commissioner and there is no explanation which is forth coming from the petitioner on this aspect. 6. Apart from that, the ailments which have been mentioned are not such which would restrain the petitioner from diligently prosecuting her case. Even otherwise, nothing precluded the petitioner from filing the chief-affidavit through her advocate and submitting herself to cross-examination through a Commissioner and there is no explanation which is forth coming from the petitioner on this aspect. 6. The delay being substantial, the reasons assigned by the petitioner do not reflect her inability to attend the Court or prosecute the case and therefore, the order of the trial Court does not call for any interference. 7. The Civil Revision Petition is therefore dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed.