Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2026 DIGILAW 81 (AP)

Devi Reddy Radha v. Vaddemalyam Venkateshawaralu

2026-01-22

B.S.BHANUMATHI

body2026
ORDER : B.S.Bhanumathi, J. I.A.No.1 of 2025 is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay of 1865 days in preferring the present revision petition. 2. This revision petition is filed under Section 115 of C.P.C. challenging the order dated 11.03.2020 in I.A.No.74 of 2020 in I.A.No.641 of 2017 in O.S.No.92 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the I Additional District Judge, Ananthapuramu. 3. The case of the petitioners is, briefly stated, as follows : The revision petitioners Nos.1 and 2 filed a suit in O.S.No.92 of 2015 against the respondent No.1 for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the plaint schedule house property, based on a registered sale deed dated 04.02.2015 from the defendant coupled with possession of the same. They pleaded that, while the plaintiffs were getting the property renovated, the defendant entered into the property proclaiming that he has right over the property and had not sold the property to the plaintiffs and thus he illegally occupied the plaint schedule property by dispossessing the plaintiffs, being women, could not resist the defendant as he was supported by local political leaders and is involved in criminal activities. 4. 4. The defendant resisted the suit by filing a written statement denying the case of the plaintiffs and affirmatively stating that the plaintiffs suppressed the truth and filed the frivolous suit; that the defendant had approached the Syndicate Bank, Vuravakonda for financial assistance and secured loan of Rs.9,90,000/- and later the amount due rised to Rs.11,49,165/-; that the bank declared the loan as non-performing asset (N.P.A.) and put the property for auction by issuing notice; that the defendant executed the sale deed dated 04.02.2015 by entering into an understanding that the plaintiffs had to pay the amount due to the bank and the defendant should execute a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs, without actually delivering the possession of the property; that taking undue advantage of the registered sale deed, the plaintiffs filed this frivolous suit with false averments; that on the very same day i.e., on 04.02.2015, the plaintiffs executed a consent deed in favour of the defendant agreeing to cancel the sale deed after receiving an amount of Rs.12,27,500/- from the defendant; that thus, the sale deed is not supported by the entire amount of cash consideration; that on 08.06.2015, the defendant got issued a legal notice through his counsels Sri P.Ramalingaiah and K.V.Subba Rayudu calling upon the plaintiffs to cancel the sale deed dated 12.06.2015; that the plaintiffs, having received the notice, suppressed the same in the plaint; the plaintiffs contemplated to grab the property and; that there is no cause of action for filing the suit. 5. As the sole defendant died on 17.03.2016 pending the suit, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.641 of 2017 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay of 557 days in filing a petition to bring the legal representatives of the sole defendant on record. The legal representatives did not contest I.A.No.641 of 2017, however, the petition was dismissed for default. 6. I.A.No.74 of 2020 was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone delay of 530 days in filing a petition to restore I.A.No.641 of 2017. I.A.No.74 of 2020 was allowed on merits on 11.03.2020 with a condition that the petitioners shall pay costs of Rs.500/- to the other side on or before 17.03.2020. On 17.03.2020, the petition in I.A.No.74 of 2020 was dismissed for default. 7. I.A.No.94 of 2021 was filed to set aside the order dated 17.03.2020 in I.A.No.74 of 2020. I.A.No.74 of 2020 was allowed on merits on 11.03.2020 with a condition that the petitioners shall pay costs of Rs.500/- to the other side on or before 17.03.2020. On 17.03.2020, the petition in I.A.No.74 of 2020 was dismissed for default. 7. I.A.No.94 of 2021 was filed to set aside the order dated 17.03.2020 in I.A.No.74 of 2020. It was dismissed on 21.04.2022 as I.A.No.74 of2020 was not dismissed for default, but on merits. Challenging the order dated 21.04.2022, a revision petition in C.R.P.No.585 of 2023 was filed before this Court, along with a petition to condone the delay in filing the revision petition. The interlocutory application was allowed condoning the delay. But, C.R.P.No.585 of 2023 was dismissed on 06.05.2024. A review petition in I.A.No.2 of 2024, along with I.A.No.1 of 2024 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 113 days in filing the revision petition, was filed and is pending. 8. In the back drop of these facts, C.R.P.No.2049 of 2025, i.e. the present revision petition was filed challenging the order dated 11.03.2020 in I.A.No.74 of 2020. 9. The revision petition was filed along with I.A.No.1 of 2025 to condone delay of 1865 days in filing the revision petition. The revision petitioners explained the delay stating that the previous proceedings were genuinely taken by filing C.R.P.No.585 of 2023 and also a review petition therein, whereas the petitioners were advised to challenge the conditional order dated 11.03.2020 by filing a separate revision petition and therefore, all the period taken in prosecuting the previous proceedings under a mistaken impression caused the delay which is not deliberate or wanton and that unless the delay is condoned the petitioners would suffer irreparable loss and injury. 10. This revision petition was filed on the ground that the trial Court ought not to have imposed costs while allowing the petition I.A.No.74 of 2020 on 11.03.2020 and also that the trial Court had not mentioned in ‘A’ dairy about imposition of costs which is reflected in the contents of dairy uploaded in the e-Courts website and therefore, the trial Court, at least, ought to have extended time for payment of the costs on 17.03.2020 to a further date and thus the trial Court committed grave error. 11. 11. The respondent No.2 filed a counter in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in this revision petition mainly stating that the revision petition is not maintainable; and that condonation of delay of 530 days vide I.A.No.74 of 2020 in filing the petition in I.A.No.75 of 2020 under Order IX, Rule 9 of C.P.C. for restoration of I.A.No.641 of 2017 does not arise at all since the plaintiffs already filed I.A.No.784 of 2019 for restoration of I.A.No.641 of 2017, but the same was withdrawn on 03.12.2019 by filing a memo, however the trial Court vaguely allowed I.A.No.74 of 2020, contrary to legal procedure, with a condition to pay costs of Rs.500/-. It is further contended that the condition was not complied by the petitioners, though they were well aware of the conditional order; that C.R.P.No.585 of 2023 was filed before this Court and the same was dismissed by this Court on 06.05.2024 giving elaborate reasons; that the reasons shown for long delay of 1865 days to be condoned in I.A.No.74 of 2020 are not proper and believable and; that the proceedings taken by the plaintiffs are just to drag on the matter without any merit. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is a good case for the plaintiffs in the suit in as much as the defendant filed the written statement admitting execution of the sale deed and the payment of the entire amount of loan due by him to the bank discharged by the plaintiffs, but he had taken a plea that it is only an arrangement to execute the registered sale deed without delivering the physical possession by separately executing a consent deed and therefore, all these facts are to be ascertained during the course of trial only and consequently the case pleaded by the plaintiffs is not vexatious. He further submitted that on 11.03.2020, though I.A.No.74 of 2020 was allowed with costs, since it was not mentioned in the ‘A’ dairy that it was allowed with costs, but it was recorded as ‘interlocutory petitions are pending’, the condition could not be complied, whereas on 17.03.2020 suddenly the petition was dismissed for default, instead of extending the time for payment of costs and that too, the dismissal was recorded as ‘default’ instead of ‘non-compliance of the condition’. Under these circumstances, he requested to allow the revision petition. 13. Under these circumstances, he requested to allow the revision petition. 13. The learned counsel for the respondents Nos.2 and 3 submitted that the order in the revision petition in C.R.P.No.585 of 2023 filed against the order dated 21.04.2022 in I.A.No.94 of 2021 has become final and therefore, the orders dated 17.03.2020 and 11.03.2020 in relation to I.A.No.74 of 2020 cannot be challenged. He further submitted that there is no merit in this revision challenging order dated 11.03.2020 as the trial Court imposed the condition to pay costs, while allowing their petition in view of the abnormal delay and the condition to pay costs need not be set aside. Further, he reiterated, as in the counter, that the plaintiffs filed another petition in I.A.No.784 of 2019 to restore I.A.No.641 of 2017, but the same was withdrawn by filing a memo and therefore, the subsequent petition in I.A.No.75 of 2020 does not lie for the same relief and consequently I.A.No.74 of 2020 is futile. 14. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that if not the order for payment of costs set aside, this Court may extend the time for payment of the costs. 15. In response thereto, the learned counsel for the respondents Nos.2 and 3 submitted that no petition was filed at least before the trial Court to extend the time. 16. It was rightly contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that the daily proceedings dated 11.03.2020 of the concerned Court shows that I.As. were pending and the daily proceedings dated 17.03.2020 shows that I.A.No.72 of 2020, 73 of 2020 and 74 of 2020 and 75 of 2020 were dismissed for default. Yet, the suit was adjourned to 24.03.2020 for framing issues. Of course, now the adjournment is not relevant for the purpose of the present revision petition. As the petitioners / plaintiffs have good ground for not complying the payment of costs for want of information in the daily proceedings, it is irregular to dismiss the petitions, without providing sufficient opportunity to pay costs by extending the time for payment of costs. As the petitioners / plaintiffs have good ground for not complying the payment of costs for want of information in the daily proceedings, it is irregular to dismiss the petitions, without providing sufficient opportunity to pay costs by extending the time for payment of costs. The order passed in C.R.P.No.585 of 2023 is not a bar to challenge the previous order dated 11.03.2020 as the delay in filing the revision petition was caused due to genuine prosecution of the previous proceedings and there is every need to challenge the previous order dated 11.03.2020 in I.A.No.74 of 2020, the delay in filing the present petition needs to be condoned, however by imposing some terms as to costs to compensate the inconvenience caused to the respondents. For the same reason, with reference to the proceedings in ‘A dairy’ referred to therein, the time for payment of costs could have been extended by the trial Court. As the respondents have not challenged the order dated 11.03.2020 in I.A.No.74 of 2020, now they cannot contend that the delay ought not to have been condoned on any ground. Moreover, the case in the suit requires an adjudication on merits in the light of the pleadings in both the plaint and the written statement referred above. Therefore, the steps taken by the petitioners all through till now are not just vexatious or frivolous. Therefore, if there are any latches or lapses on the part of the petitioners, the same can be met by imposing suitable terms as to payment of costs. 17. Accordingly, I.A.No.1 of 2025 is allowed on the condition that the petitioners shall pay Rs.5,000/- to the respondents within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which, I.A.No.1 of 2025 stands dismissed without any further order. C.R.P.No.2049 of 2025, subject to due compliance of the order in I.A.No.1 of 2025, stands allowed without any further order and the order dated 11.03.2020 in I.A.No.74 of 2020 gets modified to the extent of the date of payment of the costs of Rs.500/- within 15 days from the date of restoration of I.A.No.74 of 2020 by the trial Court. If I.A.No.1 of 2025 stands dismissed for non-compliance of the condition, the revision petition also stands dismissed without any further order. If I.A.No.1 of 2025 stands dismissed for non-compliance of the condition, the revision petition also stands dismissed without any further order. It is needless to say that on compliance of the condition to pay costs in I.A.No.74 of 2020, all the previous consequential proceedings get vitiated and all the relevant petitions get restored to file. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.