Allowed

Andhavarapu Govinda Rajulu, v. Kalaga Ganesh

Telangana HC12 Apr 2013CRP/4630/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil revision petition, the High Court corrected an error in the District Judge's order dismissing an application for condonation of a 1021-day delay in representing an appeal. The Court allowed the revision, condoned the delay, and set aside the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition allowed; impugned order set aside; I.A. No.1592 of 2011 allowed for condonation of delay.

Andhavarapu Govinda Rajulu, Vs Kalaga Ganesh — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4630 of 2011

¶3

Dated: 12.04.2013

¶4

Between:

¶5

Andhavarapu Govinda Rajulu

¶6

…..Petitioner And

¶7

Kalaga Ganesh

¶8

…..Respondent

¶9

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4630 of 2011

¶10

ORDER :

¶11

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by an order dated 26.08.2011 passed in I.A.No.1592 of 2011 in unnumbered Appeal No. – of 2011 (GR. No.5318) by the District Judge, Srikakulam.

¶12

2. The plaintiff - petitioner herein filed O.S. No.68 of 2007 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam for specific performance of agreement of sale and the same was decreed on 24.07.2008, directing the defendant - respondent herein to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff within two months from the date of judgment. Against the said judgment, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the Principal District Judge, Srikakulam on 15.09.2008. Pending appeal before the District Court, the petitioner filed I.A.No.

¶13

48 of 2009 in O.S.No.68 of 2007 before the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, seeking review of the judgment and decree passed in the suit. By order, dated

¶14

03.07.2009, the said application was dismissed.

¶15

3. The appeal, which has been filed before the District Judge, Srikakulam, was returned with certain objections. Since the petitioner was pursuing the review in O.S., there was a delay of 1021 days in representing the appeal, for which the petitioner filed I.A. No.1592 of 2011 in representing the appeal, seeking condonation of the said delay. By the impugned order order, dated 26.08.2011 the learned District Judge, Srikakulam dismissed the application for the reason that the petitioner has not shown good cause for condoning the delay. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

¶16

4. Heard both sides.

¶17

5. A perusal of the material placed before the Court would indicate that against the judgment passed in O.S.No.68 of 2007, the petitioner preferred an appeal within the statutory period of limitation, but the same was returned due to some technical objections. Instead of pursuing the matter in the appeal, the petitioner filed I.A. No. 48 of 2009 seeking review of the judgment and decree passed in the suit, and the same was dismissed. It is to be noticed that the appeal was returned long back and no steps were taken by the petitioner to represent the same by complying with the office objections.

¶18

6. However, the petitioner filed the present I.A. seeking

¶19

condonation of delay of 1021 days in representing the appeal. The learned District Judge has dismissed the said I.A. without assigning any cogent reasons. In view of the fact that the said appeal was filed in time, but the objections were not complied within the time prescribed and also in view of the explanation given in the application filed in support of the petition filed herein, I deem it appropriate to condone the delay of 1021 days in representing the appeal.

¶20

7. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. Consequently, I.A. No.1592 of 2011 is allowed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Civil Revision Petition, shall stand closed.

¶21

C.PRAVEEN KUMAR, J

¶22

12^th April, 2013.

¶23

mar

Andhavarapu Govinda Rajulu, v. Kalaga Ganesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Andhavarapu Govinda Rajulu, v. Kalaga Ganesh

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

Odigi Savitramma, Vs G.Chinnamadu

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt.Katti Venkata Ramana

S.v.L.S.Ranga Rao, Vs The State of A.P.

Patan Mahaboob Khan, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sonti Krishna Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

V.P. Venkateswarlu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh