Allowed

Muddarangappa (Died) by L.Rs. 2 to 7 v. Era Muddappa

Telangana HC21 Mar 2013CRP/2075/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed a revision petition against dismissal of an application to condone delay in restoring a dismissed suit. The court ordered restoration of the suit subject to payment of costs to the Legal Services Authority, prioritizing merits over technicalities.

What did the court decide?

Original application for restoration of suit allowed; petitioner directed to pay Rs. 1,000 costs to Legal Services Authority.

Muddarangappa (Died) by L.Rs. 2 to 7 Vs Era… — Execution and Attachment | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2075 of 2010

¶3

st Dated:- 21 March, 2013

¶4

Between:Muddarangappa and others

¶5

…Petitioners

¶6

AND

¶7

Era Muddappa and another

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR

¶10

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2075 of 2010

¶11

ORDER:-

¶12

In spite of service of notices on the respondents, none appears for them.

¶13

This Revision is directed against the order dated 22.12.2009 passed in I.A.No.104 of 2009 in O.S.No.192 of 1999 by the Junior Civil Judge, Madakasira, Anantapur District.

¶14

The original suit was filed by one Muddarangappa, husband of the second petitioner. After the death of the original plaintiff, petitioners 2 to 7 came on record as his Legal Heirs. The suit was posted finally for trial on 11.02.2005 and due to the absence of the petitioners, it was dismissed for default on 11.02.2005. Then, the petitioners filed an application for restoration of the suit along with an

¶15

application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to condone delay of 259 days in filing the said application. The said application for condonation of delay was dismissed and challenging the same, the petitioners preferred this revision.

¶16

The reasons assigned by the petitioners for delay in filing the application for restoration of the original suit is that after the death of the original plaintiff, they were in financial troubles and, therefore, they went to Bhadravathi in Karnataka State for coolie work and they could not give their change of address to their advocate and, therefore, they could not take steps to file the application for restoration of the original suit, in time.

¶17

Though it appears that there are laches on the part of the petitioners, but it is always better to dispose of the cases on merits rather than on technicalities.

¶18

In the circumstances, this revision is allowed and consequently I.A.No.104 of 2009 in O.S.No.192 of 1999 stands allowed, subject to the condition of the petitioner paying costs of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) to the

¶19

Mandal Legal Services Authority, Madakasira, Anantapur District, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶20

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, filed in this petition, stands closed.

¶21

Justice B.Chandra Kumar

¶22

March 21, 2013 Bvv

Muddarangappa (Died) by L.Rs. 2 to 7 v. Era Muddappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muddarangappa (Died) by L.Rs. 2 to 7 v. Era Muddappa

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

Bee Jhani Bee Vs Smt. Safia Begum

Bee Jhoni Bee W/o. Mohammad YAsin Ali Vs Smt. Safia Begum W/o. Sk. Saida

M/s. Anwarul Uloom College of Engineering and Technology, Vs Sri Dr.Ram Mohan Rao

Md. Usman Vs Md. Sameena Begum

Mohammed Muneeb Akbar Vs Ali Bin Mubarak

Katragadda Kumaraswamy Vs Katragadda Haranadha Babu