Gummalla Venkata Siva Reddy, Vs Gummalla Venkata Subba Reddy

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the revision petitioner/1^st plaintiff challenging the order dated 20.07.2023 passed in IA No.10 of 2021 in OS No.460 of 2013 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa, whereby the trial Court condoned the delay of 2076 days in representing the

¶17

SRK, J CRP No.3106 of 2025

¶18

2

¶19

petition filed under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to set aside the ex parte decree.

¶20

Brief facts leading to filing of the present revision are that respondents 1 and 2 herein/defendants are father and son. The petitioner and 3^rd respondent herein/plaintiffs filed OS No.460 of 2013 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa, seeking partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties along with consequential reliefs of declaration of title and also to declare the sale deed dated 12.03.2009 as a forged document. In the said suit, the defendants failed to appear and consequently an ex parte decree was passed on 30.12.2014.

¶21

On coming to know about the ex parte decree, the defendants filed an application, vide SR No.493 of 2015 under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, seeking to set aside the ex parte decree and to permit them to contest the suit. However, the said application was returned by the trial Court on 26.03.2015 with an objection that the advocate appearing for the defendants had not filed vakalat.

¶22

According to the defendants, 1^st defendant underwent open heart surgery and due to his serious health condition they were unable to meet their advocate and comply with the office objection within the stipulated time. Consequently, there occurred a delay of 2076 days in representing the said application along with vakalat. Therefore, they filed IA No.10 of 2021 seeking condonation of the said delay.

¶23

SRK, J CRP No.3106 of 2025

¶24

3

¶25

The trial Court, after considering the explanation offered by the defendants and taking note of the medical condition of 1^st defendant, allowed the application by order dated 20.07.2023 and condoned the delay. Aggrieved thereby, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by 1^st plaintiff.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and perused the material available on record.

¶27

The only point that arises for consideration is whether the trial Court committed any illegality or material irregularity in condoning the delay of 2076 days in representing the petition filed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC.

¶28

It is well settled that the expression “sufficient cause” appearing in Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. The Courts are required to adopt a pragmatic approach while considering applications for condonation of delay, particularly when refusal to condone the delay would result in denial of an opportunity to contest the matter on merits, particularly when substantive property rights of the parties are involved.

¶29

In the present case, the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was in fact filed within time but the same was returned by the trial Court with an office objection regarding filing of vakalat. The delay occurred in representing the returned application. The explanation offered by the defendants is that 1^st defendant had undergone open heart surgery and due to his serious health

¶30

SRK, J CRP No.3106 of 2025

¶31

4

¶32

condition they were unable to contact their counsel and comply with the objection in time. The trial Court found the said explanation to be plausible and acceptable.

¶33

It is also relevant to note that the dispute between the parties relates to partition and declaration of title in respect of immovable properties. In such matters, the Courts ordinarily lean in favour of affording an opportunity to the parties to contest the suit on merits rather than shutting the doors on technical grounds.

¶34

The order passed by the trial Court condoning the delay is essentially discretionary in nature. Unless the discretion exercised by the trial Court is shown to be arbitrary, perverse or contrary to settled principles of law, this Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, would not be justified in interfering with such an order.

¶35

In the case on hand, the trial Court has considered the explanation offered by the defendants and exercised its discretion in favour of condoning the delay so as to afford them an opportunity to contest the suit. This Court does not find any illegality, irregularity or perversity in the said order warranting interference under revisional jurisdiction.

¶36

On the other hand, if the delay is not condoned, the defendants would be deprived of an opportunity to contest the suit involving valuable rights in immovable property. No serious prejudice would be caused to the plaintiffs if the matter is decided on merits after giving opportunity to both sides.

¶37

SRK, J CRP No.3106 of 2025

¶38

5

¶39

In view of the above circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order passed by the trial Court does not suffer from any infirmity and the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶40

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶41

Since the suit is of the year 2013, learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa is directed to dispose of OS No.460 of 2013 in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶42

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed.

¶43

________________________ K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J.

¶44

Date:27.02.2026 Nsr

¶45

SRK, J CRP No.3106 of 2025

¶46

6

¶47

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY