Allowed

Sri Swamy Hathiramjee Mutt, v. Smt.C.Yasodamma

Telangana HC16 Dec 2011CRP/171/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed revisions against an order dismissing applications to set aside a default order and the main suit for lack of timely filing under Article 122 Limitation Act. The Court applied principles of equity, condoning the 37-day delay in a title suit filed by a charitable institution to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and technical dismissal.

What did the court decide?

The orders under revision set aside; C.R.Ps and I.A. Nos. 26 and 28 of 2000 allowed with no order as to costs.

Sri Swamy Hathiramjee Mutt, Vs Smt.C.Yasodamma — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 7037 of 2005 and 171 of 2006 COMMON ORDER:

¶2

These two revision petitions are filed against the orders dated passed in I.A. Nos. 26 and 28 of 2000 in O.S. No. 12 of 1998 on 16.11.2001 by the IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor District. The petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit filed against the respondent for declaration of title and for possession of the suit schedule property. The application in I.A. No. 83 of 1999 filed by the petitioner for impleading the purchaser as defendant No.2, was dismissed for default. To set aside the said dismissal order and to restore the I.A. to file, the petitioner filed I.A. No. 86 of 1999, and while the same was pending, the Court below by order dated 18.01.2000, dismissed I.A. No. 86 of 1999 as well as the suit. Therefore, the petitioner filed I.A. Nos. 26 and 28 of 2000 praying to condone the delay of 37 days in filing applications to set aside the order dated 18.01.2000, passed dismissing I.A. No. 86 of 1999 and the main suit for default, and to restore the same to file.

¶3

The Court below holding that as per Article 122 of the Limitation Act, the application has to be filed within 30 days from the date of dismissal, and as the present applications are filed after expiry of thirty days and the reasons assigned for the delay being not satisfactory, dismissed the said applications. Hence, the petitioner filed the present revisions.

¶4

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared for the respondents despite service of notice.

¶5

The petitioner, which is a charitable institution, has filed the suit for declaration of title and possession of the suit schedule property, which is

¶6

worth more than Rs.20.00 lakhs. There is no doubt that applications for setting aside default order have to be filed within 30 days from the date of their dismissal. But that does not mean that applications filed beyond 30 days period cannot be entertained, if the reasons for the delay are properly explained. The affidavit, filed in support of the condone delay applications, though does not explain the delay properly, but the fact remains, the delay is said to have occasioned due to administrative reasons. Since valuable rights of the petitioner are involved in the suit, which is filed for declaration of title and possession, I am of the considered opinion that the Court below to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, instead of going by technicalities and dismissing the present applications, ought to have allowed them and condoned the delay of 37 days in filing the present applications to set aside the order dismissing the I.A. and the suit for default, and provided opportunity to the petitioner to pursue the suit.

¶7

For the foregoing reasons, the orders under revision are set aside. The C.R.Ps, are allowed and consequently I.A. Nos. 26 and 28 of 2000 are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶8

________________ Justice N.V. Ramana

¶9

Date: 16.12.2011 Nn

¶10

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA

¶11

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 7037 of 2005 and 171 of 2006

¶12

16.12.2011

Sri Swamy Hathiramjee Mutt, v. Smt.C.Yasodamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Swamy Hathiramjee Mutt, v. Smt.C.Yasodamma

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

K. Vijayarama Raja Reddy, Vs Mr. Pulala Siva Prasad

S. Buchaiah Vs K.Venkataramana [died]

Shaik Dhada Saheb Vs M.Krishna Murthy Reddy

B.Saroja, Vs B.Sreeramulu

Karamala Govindamma, Vs T. Rajamma

G.Pattabhi Chetty Vs Mr. S.Ravindra Baby