Civil Revision Petition challenging dismissal of an application to condone a 240-day delay for filing an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC. This Court dismissed the revision as devoid of merits, finding the lower Judge's reasons cogent.
Civil Revision Petition dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions closed.
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.
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO
CIVIL REVISOIN PETITION No.592 of 2011
ORDER :
Present Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by the petitioners-defendant Nos.2 and 3 aggrieved over the order dated 30.09.2010 passed in I.A.No.783 of 2005 in O.S.No.90 of 1998 by the II Additional District Judge, Warangal.
Heard.
Petitioners filed the impugned application under Section 5 of Limitation Act seeking to condone the delay of 240 days in filing petition under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which was dismissed by the learned Judge with costs vide impugned order observing that D.2 in spite of having knowledge of the proceedings, willfully abstained in appearing before the Court. Challenging the same, present revision has been preferred.
Having carefully gone through the impugned order, this Court is of the considered view that the reasons given by the learned Judge while dismissing the impugned application are cogent in nature and after due enquiry into the matter only the learned Judge dismissed the impugned application on the ground that the petitioners failed to made out sufficient cause to condone the delay.
Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions filed in this revision, if any, shall stand closed.
JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO
Dated 8th June, 2012 sur
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the lower Judge correctly dismissed the application to condone a 240-day delay for filing an application to set aside a judgment.
Whether the revision petitioner failed to make out sufficient cause for condoning the delay.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Petitioners Defendant Nos.2 and 3
II Additional District Judge, Warangal
RAJA ELANGO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
