Allowed

Smt. Sujathamma v. a.Chowde Gowdu (died)

Andhra Pradesh HC7 Dec 2023CRP/2768/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court allowed a civil revision petition to condone a 138-day delay in filing an appeal regarding a partition suit. The appellant cited viral fever and bed rest as reasons for the initial delay. The court took a liberal view, set aside the dismissal of the application for condonation, and directed the appeal to be numbered, heard expeditiously, and decided within four months.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of 138-day delay is allowed; order dated 03.01.2022 and I.A.No.3 of 2016 set aside; appeal directed to be numbered, heard expeditiously, and decided within 4 months; costs of Rs. 5,000 fix

Smt. Sujathamma Vs a.Chowde Gowdu (died) — Partition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2768 of 2023

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

The petitioner herein had filed O.S.No.616 of 2014 before the learned Senior Civil Judge at Palamaner for partition of certain properties that are claimed by her to the joint family properties of the family consisting of herself and the defendants in the Suit.

¶4

This suit came to be dismissed on 10.07.2015.

¶5

Aggrieved by the same the petitioner had moved to the Learned Principal District Judge, Chittoor by way of an appeal. However, there is a delay of 138 days in filing the said appeal. The petitioner had moved I.A.No.3 of 2016, in the appeal, for condonation of the delay of 138 days in filing the appeal. This application was dismissed by the Learned Principal District Judge, Chittoor by an order dated 03.01.2022. Aggrieved by the said order for dismissal, the petitioner had approached this Court.

¶6

The contention of the petitioner was that she was suffering from viral fever on account of the said illness she was required complete bed rest, on doctor’s advice, up to

¶7

¶8

30.10.2015. The Appellate Court, while accepting this as a sufficient reason for delay of condonation after 30.10.2015, took the view that subsequent period has not been explained and as such, no grounds have made out for condonation of delay.

¶9

Sri O. Udaya Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents would also submit that in the absence of any reason given for condonation of delay, there would be no necessity to interfere with the orders of the Appellate Court and there is no irregularity or illegality in the order which requires any variation of the said order.

¶10

While the contention of Sri O. Udaya Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents, has sufficient force, it must also be kept in mind that this is a suit for partition and it would also be a cloud over the title of all the parties to the suit until this issue is determined once and for all and it would only be in the interest of all sides that a proper decision is rendered in the matter on merits.

¶11

In the circumstances, this Court, taking a liberal view of the matter, deems it appropriate to condone the delay in filing of the appeal and accordingly, the order dated

¶12

¶13

03.11.2022 and I.A.No.3 of 2016 in the unnumbered appeal is set aside and the appeal is directed to be numbered and heard on merits.

¶14

As the appeal was originally filed in the year 2016, it would also be appropriate that the appeal is heard expeditiously and at any rate be decided, within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶15

Before parting with this Case, this Court is also of the view that the petitioner is required to pay costs in this regard and as such a sum of Rs.5,000/- is fixed as cost payable to the learned counsel for the respondent in the Appellate Court.

¶16

Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed.

¶17

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if

¶18

any, shall stand closed.

¶19

____________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

¶20

07.12.2023 KPV/BSM

¶21

¶22

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶23

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2768 of 2023

¶24

07.12.2023

¶25

KPV/BSM

Smt. Sujathamma v. a.Chowde Gowdu (died)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sujathamma v. a.Chowde Gowdu (died)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pasam Venkateswarlu, Vs Sri. Sashi Bhushan Kumar, I.A.S

Korimisetty Yerraiah, Vs Sri. Sashi Bhushan Kumar, I.A.S

Kota Devid, Vs Sri. Sashi Bhushan Kumar, I.A.S

Kuntala Peddagangadhar Vs Sri Sasibhushan Kumar I.A.S

M/S Chetan Construction Vs Sri Sasibhushan Kumar, IAS

Saji Srinivasa Raju Vs Vivid Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Limited