Dismissed

Bankula Venkataiah, v. Doma Basappa died Per LRs. 2,3,4 and 5

Telangana HC11 Jun 2013CRP/1729/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil revision petition, the court dismissed a challenge to the lower court's order rejecting the petitioner's application to condone a 29-year delay in filing an appeal. The court found the petitioner failed to show reasonable grounds for inaction during the first 20 years and lacked documentary evidence for mental instability during the subsequent period.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, are closed.

Bankula Venkataiah, Vs Doma Basappa died… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1729 of 2013

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 18-09-2012 in I.A.No.119 of 2012 to condone the delay in filing the appeal.

¶4

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

¶5

The first respondent filed the suit in O.S.No.21 of 1966 basing on an agreement of sale against the petitioner and two others. The said suit was decreed on 08-12-1969. The case of the petitioner is that while he was intending to file an appeal he was implicated in a murder case and finally he was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life in S.C.No.62 of 1978 by judgment dated 1008-1979. He preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.1087 of 1979 and the same was dismissed on 31-08-1981. He was sent to jail in 1979 and was released from jail in April, 1993. It is also his case that he was mentally upset and he was not in a position to stay in the village. It is also his case that his Advocate Sri Mr.Meerja Vaheed Baig died and he had forgotten the past completely and was not having any idea about the suit.

¶6

3. Sri M. Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that unfortunately all above referred facts were not stated in the affidavit filed by the petitioner before the lower Court, which resulted in dismissal of the petition.

¶7

4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is inordinate delay of 29 years in filing the appeal and the petitioner has miserably failed to explain the delay.

¶8

5. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the

¶9

petitioner has shown sufficient reasons to condone the delay?

¶10

6. Admittedly, O.S.No.21 of 1966 was decreed on 08-12-1969. The petitioner was convicted in S.C.No.62 of 1978 on 10-08-1979. According to his own affidavit he was sent to jail in the year 1979 and released in April, 1983. It appears that the petitioner could not prefer an appeal from 1979 to 1983. The period of about 10 years from 08-12-1969 i.e., from the date of judgment in O.S.No.21 of 1966 till the date of Sessions Case on 10-08-1979 is concerned, the petitioner has not shown any reasons for his inaction. Thus no reasonable grounds to condone the delay are shown till 1979. Though it is contended that even after release from jail he was mentally upset and was not in a position to stay in the village, no documentary evidence has been filed to show that the petitioner was mentally upset. It is clear that the petitioner has miserably failed to explain the inordinate delay. Hence, I do not find any illegality or infirmity to interfere with the order of the trial Court.

¶11

7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶12

_________________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J

¶13

June 11, 2013 PN

¶14

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR

¶15

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1729 of 2013

¶16

June 11, 2013

¶17

Bankula Venkataiah, v. Doma Basappa died Per LRs. 2,3,4 and 5

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bankula Venkataiah, v. Doma Basappa died Per LRs. 2,3,4 and 5

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

K.Anjaneyulu S/o K.Ramulu Vs Sri Prakash Misra

B.Vasanthi, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Yaragangu Rakminamma Vs Javuka Charala Narasimhulu

R.Chakradhar Singh, Vs The Chairman and Disciplinary Authority

M.v.Apparao Vs Syndicate Bank

Dr. P. Narasimha Reddy, Vs Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupathi