Allowed

M/s Chaitanya Restors, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC26 Dec 2011CRP/4285/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Civil Revision Petition challenged an order dismissing an application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal. The single-judge bench, comprising Justice G. Rohini, examined the petitioner's excuse of illness for their lawyer and found sufficient cause to condone the two-month delay, thereby setting aside the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

IA No. 447 of 2009 is allowed, delay is condoned, and the impugned order is set aside subject to depositing costs.

M/s Chaitanya Restors, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI

¶2

Civil Revision Petition No. 4285 of 2011

¶3

Date: 26.12.2011

¶4

Between:

¶5

M/s. Chaitanya Resorts, rep., by its Managing Partners and 6 others.

¶6

… Petitioners

¶7

And

¶8

The State of Andhra Pradesh,

¶9

Rep., by it Principal Secretary and 7 others.

¶10

… Respondents

¶11

HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Civil Revision Petition No. 4285 of 2011

¶12

O R D E R :

¶13

This revision petition is filed under Section 115 of C.P.C. against the order dated 11.07.2011 in I.A.No.447 of 2009 in LRA.Sr.No.1223 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

¶14

The facts in brief are as under:

¶15

By order dated 28.01.2008, the Land Reforms Tribunal cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella determined the revision petitioners as surplus land-holders under A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973. Challenging the said order, the petitioners preferred a revision petition before this Court. The said revision petition was dismissed upholding the office objection that the revision petition was not maintainable. Accordingly, this Court by order dated 16.12.2008 directed the Registry to return the original papers to the petitioners to enable them to avail the alternative remedy of appeal. Thereafter, the appeal (LRA.Sr.No.1223 of 2009) was presented before the Court below on 28.02.2009 along with I.A.No.447 of 2009 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay.

¶16

The said application was dismissed by the Court below observing that though the delay till 16.12.2008 on which date the CRP was dismissed by this Court can be condoned on the ground that the petitioners were pursuing a wrong remedy, no sufficient cause could be made out by the petitioners for the delay of about two months in preferring the appeal thereafter. Aggrieved by the order dated 11.07.2011 passed by the Court below, present revision petition is filed. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Government Pleader for Arbitration appearing for the respondents 1 to 7.

¶17

It is true that after the dismissal of the earlier revision petition by

¶18

this Court, the petitioners took about two months for presenting the appeal before the Court below. However, the delay was explained stating that the petitioner No.3 was bedridden from 10.12.2008 to 28.02.2009.

¶19

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that the petitioner No.3 was looking after the proceedings before the Tribunal below and since he was unwell the appeal could not be presented within time. The learned counsel has also referred to various medical certificates that were produced before the Tribunal below to substantiate the plea that the petitioner No.3 was unwell.

¶20

In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any justifiable reason to disbelieve the stand taken by the revision petitioners. Since sufficient cause has been made out by the petitioners for the delay, it would be appropriate to condone the delay so that the matter would be adjudicated on merits.

¶21

Accordingly, the order under revision is hereby set aside and I.A.No.447 of 2009 is allowed and the delay is condoned subject to depositing Rs.1,000/- towards costs to the A.P. State Legal Services Authority within a period of four weeks from today.

¶22

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶23

______________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 26.12.2011 Note: Issue C.C. in 2 days. KLP

M/s Chaitanya Restors, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Chaitanya Restors, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Goundala Padmamma, Vs Sri Palle Veeraiah

M/s. Kavita 70 Mm., a/c., Rep., by its Managing Partner Vs The Collector, Karimnagar.

M.Divya , Vijaya Kumari Vs M.Ravikanth Reddy

The Andhra Pradesh Mahila Abhivrudhi Society (Apmas) Vs Aware,Registered Sociewty Under the Registration of

Bharathula Sridevi Vs Kommuri Purnachandra Rao

Gundeti Vijaya Bhaskar Vs Sri S.Hari Prasad