Revision petition challenging rejection of condonatio of delay. Court found no jurisdictional error in lower court's view. Petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY C.R.P.No.4747 of 2011
Date : 18-1-2012
Between:
P. Maheshwara Chary and another .. Petitioners
And
M/s. B2B Software Technologies Limited, Represented by its Manager H.R.D. P.B. Sreenivas, Somajiguda, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents
Counsel for petitioner : Sri P. Prabhakara Rao Counsel for respondents : --
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order dated 18-7-2011 in I.A.No.1590/2009 in A.S.S.R.No.7436/2009 on the file of the learned Chief Judge, C i t y Civil Court, Hyderabad.
The petitioners are the judgement-debtors in O.S.No.2227/2004. Against the exparte decree passed in the said suit, the petitioners filed A.S.S.R.No.7436/2009. They have filed I.A.No.1590/2009 seeking condonation of delay of 259 days in filing the said appeal. The same having been rejected, the petitioners filed the present Civil Revision Petition.
In support of their application for condonation of delay, it was stated that petitioner No.1 has engaged a counsel while petitioner No.2 and respondent No.2, who are the guarantors, did not enter appearance; that the counsel for petitioner No.1 did not attend the court, as a result of which the suit was decreed exparte after recording of the plaintiff’s evidence. It is further stated that since the counsel for petitioner No.1 failed to inform the latter who lives in the United States of America about the passing of the exparte decree, no steps were taken for filing the appeal within the period of limitation and that by the time the petitioners came to be aware of the disposal of the suit, the delay of 259 days
has occurred.
The lower Court, having carefully considered the above mentioned pleas of the petitioners, rejected the same. It has observed that petitioner No.1 who alone contested the suit, has not filed his affidavit and that petitioner No.2 who has no privity of contract between himself and the counsel for petitioner No.1, is not competent to speak about the alleged failure of counsel for petitioner No.1 to inform about the disposal of the suit. The Court below has accordingly concluded that proper explanation has not been putforth by the petitioners to condone the huge delay of 259 days in filing the appeal. Having carefully considered the reasoning of the Court below, this Court is convinced that the same does not suffer from any jurisdictional error warranting interference of this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed.
________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy
Date : 18-1-2012
AM
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Civil Revision Petition deserves interference despite the rejection of the appeal by condonatio of delay.
Whether the lower court's rejection of the condonatio of delay application suffered from jurisdictional error warranting revisional interference.
P. Maheshwara Chary
another
M/s. B2B Software Technologies Limited
another
C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
