Dismissed

Mohammad Akbal v. Chinta Venkata Reddy

Telangana HC14 Jun 2013CRP/1925/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Civil Revision Petition challenging the dismissal of an application to condone a delay in filing an appeal is dismissed. The court held the petitioner negligent for assuming his counsel would keep him informed. The lower court did not commit jurisdictional error in rejecting the condonation plea.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission with no costs, and pending miscellaneous applications stand dismissed.

Mohammad Akbal Vs Chinta Venkata Reddy — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1925 of 2013

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This revision is filed challenging the order dt.24.01.2013 in I.A.No.1512 of 2012 in unnumbered Appeal A.S.No……… of 2012 filed against the judgment and decree dt.06.02.2012 in O.S.No.51 of 2010 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Amadalavalasa.

¶5

2. The petitioner herein is the defendant in the said suit. The suit was filed for recovery of money by the respondent against the petitioner and it was decreed on 06.02.2012 by the Junior Civil Judge, Amadalavalasa. The petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 96 C.P.C before the District Judge, Srikakulam on 02.08.2012 and filed I.A.No.1512 of 2012 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay of 141 days in preferring the said appeal.

¶6

3. The petitioner contended in the affidavit filed in support of the said I.A that he had no knowledge that he should prefer an appeal within 30 days from the date of decree and judgment; that his counsel did not inform him about the same; that he could not meet him as he was transferred from Silagam Singuvalasa to Kakinada, by his employer, the Food Corporation of India; that he came to Srikakulam prior to filing of this petition and met his counsel and then only his counsel informed him that his appeal is barred by limitation. He therefore, sought condonation of delay of 141 days in filing the appeal.

¶7

4. The respondent filed counter opposing the I.A filed by the petitioner and contended that the petitioner did not show sufficient cause for condonation of the delay in preferring the appeal; that the respondent had filed E.P.No.14 of 2012 against the petitioner seeking

¶8

attachment of salary of the petitioner for Rs.1,09,954/-; petitioner was set ex parte; and this application is filed intentionally to drag on the proceedings of E.P.

¶9

5. By order dt.24.01.2013 the Court below dismissed the said I.A holding that the judgment and decree in the suit were pronounced on 06.02.2012; petitioner was transferred only on 05.05.2012 from Silagam Singuvalasa village of Srikakulam District to Kakinada town, East Godavari District vide Office Order No.2/8/2012/PERS, dt.05.05.2012 of his employer, the Food Corporation of India; even in the execution petition filed against the petitioner, he remained ex parte; although it is not known when the notice in the E.P was served on the petitioner; this I.A was filed on 02.08.2012; the petitioner did not make out any sufficient cause explaining the delay in preferring the appeal.

¶10

6. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

¶11

7. Heard Sri K. Subrahmanyam, counsel for the petitioner. Although notice was served on the respondent, none appears for the respondent.

¶12

8. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Court below should have condoned the delay of 141 days in filing the appeal in exercise of its power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 accepting the plea raised by the petitioner that he was transferred from Silagam Singuvalasa Village of Srikakulam district to Kakinada town, East Godavari District by his employer; and that the counsel for the petitioner did not inform him about the disposal of the suit or advise the petitioner to file appeal within 30 days.

¶13

9. It is not disputed that O.S.No.51 of 2010 was decreed by the Junior Civil Judge, Amadalavalasa on 06.02.2012. The present

¶14

application was filed by the petitioner on 02.08.2012 to condone the delay of 141 days in preferring the appeal against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.51 of 2010. The plea of the petitioner that his counsel did not inform him is not tenable because it is the duty of the petitioner to contact his counsel either in person or on telephone/mobile phone and ascertain as to what happened to the suit in which he is a defendant. The petitioner cannot blame the Advocate for not contacting him. Admittedly, the petitioner was transferred only on 05.05.2012 i.e., three months after the judgment and decree were passed in O.S.No.51 of 2010 on 06.02.2012. No explanation is furnished by the petitioner as to what steps he had taken to contact his Advocate during this period. The petitioner has not been diligent and has acted negligently in taking steps to prefer the appeal against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.51 of 2010. Therefore, I am of the view that the Court below has not committed any error of jurisdiction in rejecting the I.A.No.1512 of 2012 in unnumbered Appeal A.S.No……. of 2012 on its file vide order dt.24.01.2013.

¶15

10. The Civil Revision Petition is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs.

¶16

11. Consequently, the miscellaneous applications, pending in this Civil Revision Petition shall stand dismissed.

¶17

________________________________ M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, J

¶18

14^th June 2013

¶19

scs

Mohammad Akbal v. Chinta Venkata Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Akbal v. Chinta Venkata Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kadali Satya Murthy S/o Sreeramulu Vs The Principal Secretary to Government

Mokhasa Kalavapudi Primary Agricultural Co-operative Vs Assistant Commissioner of Labour

Annem Anjireddy, Vs The District Cooperative Officer

Penta Venkata Rao, Vs Primary Agricultural Co-Operative Society

Lakki Kishore Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri Shishir Kumar, Vs Smt. Roopa Devi