An appellant filed a civil revision petition challenging an order rejecting its delay condonation application in filing an appeal of a dismissed suit. The court held the appellant failed to provide a reasonable explanation.
Civil revision petition and cross revision petition are dismissed with no costs.
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
Civil Revision Petition No.4917 of 2011
Date: 20-01-2012
Between
M/s. Shriram Chits (P) Ltd., Charminar Branch, Rep. by its Authorized Signatory C.Venugopal Rao
… Petitioner/Appellant/Plaintiff
and
P.Sridhar and another
… Respondents/Respondents/ Defendants
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.4917 of 2011
Order:
This civil revision petition arises out of the order dated 20-7-2011 in I.A.No.4099 of 2010 in A.S.S.R.No.28037 of 2010 on the file of the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad.
2. The petitioner filed O.S.No.553 of 2006 against the respondents for recovery of certain amounts due from chits. The said suit was dismissed on 10-7-2009. The copies of judgment and decree were delivered by the trial Court on 17-8-2009. The petitioner filed an appeal before the lower appellate Court on 277-2010 with a delay of 319 days. The petitioner has therefore filed I.A.No.4099 of 2010 for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. The said application having been dismissed, the petitioner filed the present civil revision petition.
3. In support of its application for condonation of delay,
it was stated that the suit was dismissed on 10-7-2009, copy application was made on 14-7-2009, stamps were called for on 04-8-2009, stamps were deposited on 17-8-2009 and copies of judgment and decree were delivered on 17-8-2009. It was further averred that on receipt of the copies of judgment and decree, the counsel has sent the same to the Branch Office of the petitionerCompany and that at the Branch Office, which was under shifting, the concerned clerk has misplaced the copies of judgment and decree along with the file. It was further averred that after shifting of the Branch Office, the concerned clerk has tendered resignation and left the Branch Office and therefore, the documents could not be sent to the Legal Department and higher authorities for obtaining necessary approval and that the file concerned and copies of the judgment and decree were traced only two days prior to the filing of the application.
4. The lower appellate Court, on a detailed consideration, held that all through the petitioner was aware that the suit was dismissed, that to substantiate the contention that the copies of judgment and
decree along with the file were misplaced, no Affidavit of third party was filed, that the name of the clerk who was responsible for misplacement of the file was not mentioned, that the petitioner did not file rejoinder denying the stand of respondent No.1 alleging lack of bona fides and that when respondent No.1 has demanded return of title deeds and on the petitioner’s refusal, respondent No.1 has raised a dispute before Consumer Forum and that thereafter, the petitioner filed the appeal along with the application for condonation of delay. On the strength of the above reasoning, the lower appellate Court rejected the petitioner’s application for condonation of delay.
5. In my opinion, the petitioner failed to afford reasonable explanation for condonation of delay of 319 days. As observed by the lower appellate Court, the petitioner is an organization of repute having sufficient personnel for pursuing litigation and that it has failed to show proper diligence in pursuing the remedy of appeal within a reasonable time.
6. Having carefully considered the reasons on the strength of which the petitioner’s application for condonation of delay was rejected by the lower appellate Court, I am satisfied that the order under revision does not suffer from any jurisdictional error warranting interference of this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
7. For the abovementioned reasons, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs.
8. As a sequel to the dismissal of the civil revision petition, C.R.P.M.P.No.6982 of 2011 is also dismissed as infructuous.
20th January, 2012. Ak
____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
Civil Revision Petition No.4917 of 2011
20th January, 2012. (Ak)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned order rejecting the application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal warrants interference in revisional jurisdiction.
M/s. Shriram Chits (P) Ltd., Charminar Branch
P.Sridhar
C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
