Dismissed

Sri Sai Agencies v. Hugulothu Sridevi

Telangana HC24 Jan 2012CRP/2833/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed Civil Revision Petition No.2833 of 2011. The petitioner sought revision against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's dismissal of an application to condone delay in filing a petition to set aside an ex parte decree. The court upheld the Tribunal's rejection of the condonation plea due to substantial delay and lack of convincing explanation beyond an alleged illness that covere

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed. The pending interim order dated 27.08.2011 was vacated, and a connected case for interim relief was dismissed as infructuous.

Sri Sai Agencies Vs Hugulothu Sridevi — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2833 of 2011

¶2

Date: 24.01.2012

¶3

Between:

¶4

Sri Sai Agencies-Prop.N.Seetharamulu

¶5

..... Petitioner

¶6

And:

¶7

Gugulothu Sridevi and four others

¶8

.....Respondents

¶9

Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri J.Visveshwarudu

¶10

Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2: Sri A.Ramalingeswar Rao Counsel for Respondent Nos.3, 4 & 5: None appeared.

¶11

The Court made the following: ORDER:

¶12

This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order, dated 20.06.2011, in I.A.No.45 of 2011 in O.P.No.427 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Kothagudem (for short 'the Tribunal').

¶13

The petitioner is respondent No.1 in O.P.No.427 of 2005 filed by respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 for compensation in connection with a motor accident involving

¶14

the two wheeler of the petitioner. The O.P. was decreed ex parte by the Tribunal by its order, dated 15.12.2009. The petitioner filed an application for setting aside the ex parte decree. As there was delay of 313 days in filing the said application, it has filed I.A.No.45 of 2011 for condonation of the said delay. The Tribunal after considering the respective pleas of the parties, dismissed the said application. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition.

¶15

At the hearing, Sri Visveshwarudu, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the Tribunal has failed to adopt a liberal approach while considering the petitioner's application for condonation of delay.

¶16

Sri A.Ramalingeswara Rao, learned counsel for the contesting the respondents i.e., respondent Nos.1 and 2, opposed the said contention and submitted that the Tribunal has assigned proper reasons justifying dismissal of the petitioner's application.

¶17

I have carefully considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶18

In support of the application, an affidavit was filed by the petitioner, wherein it was stated that Sri N.Sitaramulu, the owner of the offending vehicle, was suffering from fever from 10.12.2009 to 31.12.2009 and that he was advised to take complete bed rest during that period. The petitioner, however, filed the application on 30.12.2010. The Tribunal has observed that even if it is believed that the petitioner

¶19

was not well from 10.12.2009 to 31.12.2009, he failed to offer any explanation whatsoever for not filing the application upto 31.12.2010. Admittedly, no explanation has been offered by the petitioner for not filing the application within a reasonable time after his recovery from the alleged illness after 31.12.2009. There was substantial delay of more than one year in filing the application for setting aside the ex parte order. As the petitioner has not offered any explanation much less convincing explanation for condonation of such a huge delay, the Tribunal is justified in dismissing this application. Hence, I am not inclined to interfere with the order under revision passed by the Tribunal.

¶20

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. The petitioner is entitled to make appropriate application before the Tribunal in respect of the amount deposited by it in pursuance of the interim order, dated 27.08.2011, passed by this Court.

¶21

As a sequel to dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition, interim order dated 27.08.2011, is vacated and C.R.P.M.P.No.4057 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous.

¶22

__________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 24^th January 2012 DR

Sri Sai Agencies v. Hugulothu Sridevi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Sai Agencies v. Hugulothu Sridevi

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

Vijaya Bank,Malakpet Branch, Vs Shaik mohinuddin

M/S Srinivasa Deluxe Theaatre Ongole Vs Dy.Comm. (C.T.) (Fac) Guntur E.Tax.Apple

Veeramani and Another Vs Mumtaz Ali , Mumtaz Ahmed and 2 Others

Seelam Narsimha Rao Vs Smt.Paruchuri Padmaja

Nagalla Narasimha Rao Vs Penubally Rami Setty

P. Lakshmi Vs Satti Bapayamma