Allowed

Mohd. Waheeduddin, v. Smt. G. Eramma

Telangana HC8 Jul 2011CRP/902/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a civil revision petition setting aside the trial court's dismissal of an application to condone delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, restoring a suit for specific performance dismissed for default.

What did the court decide?

The application to condone delay is allowed and the dismissal order is set aside, restoring the suit to file subject to payment of Rs.300/-.

Mohd. Waheeduddin, Vs Smt. G. Eramma — Specific Performance | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 902 OF 2011

¶6

Between: Mohammed Waheeduddin … Petitioner V/s. Smt. G. Eramma & 10-Ors. … Respondents Counsel for the Revision Petitioner : Smt. K. Sridevi Counsel for the Respondents: Sri M. Sanga REddy

¶7

The Court made the following : (Judgment follows next page)

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 902 OF 2011

¶9

O R D E R :

¶10

This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 23-11-2010 passed in I.A.No. 477 of 2005 in OS.No. 50 of 2011 by the Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad, whereby and whereunder the application filed by the petitioner under Section 5 of Limitation Act seeking to condone the delay of 70 days was dismissed.

¶11

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.8.

¶12

3. The suit filed by the Revision Petitioner for Specific Performance of Contract was dismissed by the learned trial Court on 31-5-2004 on the ground that despite the fact that the suit was posted for commencement of trial, the Revision Petitioner-Plaintiff was absent. The suit was dismissed for default on 31-12-2004. Subsequently a petition was filed to set aside the dismissal order on the ground that the plaintiff fell sick on a particular day and he was undergoing treatment and the doctor at Nizamabad advised him to take rest. He also produced medical certificate to that effect. There is a delay of 79 days in making the application and the Revision Petitioner filed IA.No. 477 of 2005 seeking to condone the delay as per the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

¶13

4. The learned trial Court dismissed the Interlocutory Application on the ground that no clinical lab certificate was filed and that having opportunity to inform his counsel, the Revision Petitioner has not informed his absence. Since the Revision Petitioner filed the medical certificate in proof of his ill-ness during the relevant time, I do not think it necessary to file clinical lab certificate. Further the

¶14

interlocutory application was filed in the year 2005, the learned trial Court took up the interlocutory application for disposal in the year 2010 and dismissed the same by its order dated 23-11-2010. It is not understandable as to why the said interlocutory application was kept pending without disposal for such a long time. In any event, since as it could appear that the suit was dismissed for non-prosecution by the plaintiff. The interlocutory application is allowed on condition of the petitioner paying Rs.300/- to fthe respondents, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶15

5. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the dismissal order dated 23-11-2010 passed in I.A.No. 477 of 2005 in OS.No. 50 of 2001 is allowed and the dismissal order is set aside. The suit filed by the plaintiff is restored to file.

¶16

______________________ JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶17

08-0-7-2011 I s L

¶18

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶19

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 902 OF 2011

¶20

Circulation No. 8 3 Date:08-07-2011 Court Master: I s L Computer No. 43

Mohd. Waheeduddin, v. Smt. G. Eramma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Waheeduddin, v. Smt. G. Eramma

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

Jolapalem Siddappa Naidu Vs Apsrtc

Vadde P. v. Subbarayudu Vs Kopparapu Rama Subbaiah (diedd) By L.Rs.

Bilquis Jahan W/o Mohammed Mohsin Bin Qureshi Vs Mohammed abdul Sattar , Mohammed Haji

Kummari Srinivasulu Vs Kummari Buchaiah

Rangaswamy Anantapur Vs Meenakshi and 3 Ors. Anantapur

Bajireddy Sudershan Vs The Land Acquisition Officer