Dismissed

J. Suresh, v. a. K. Satyanarayana

Telangana HC8 Jul 2014CRP/1982/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a dismissal of a civil revision petition filed against an order refusing to condone a substantial delay of 293 days in filing an eviction appeal. The appellate court found the petitioner's explanation of illness unproven due to inconsistencies between the medical certificate and the pleaded grounds of sickness.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition No. 1982 of 2014 dismissed as without merit; Appeal for C.R.P.M.P. No. 2773 of 2014 stood disposed of as infructuous.

J. Suresh, Vs a. K. Satyanarayana — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.1982 of 2014

¶2

Dated 0 8 th July, 2014

¶3

Between:

¶4

J.Suresh and another

¶5

Petitioners

¶6

And

¶7

A.K.Satyanarayana

¶8

…Respondent

¶9

Counsel for the petitioners: Sri B.Santosh Singh for Sri Y.Ashok Raj

¶10

Counsel for the respondent: ----

¶11

The Court made the following:

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

This civil revision petition is filed against order, dated 05.06.2014, in I.A.No.412 of 2014, in R.A.(SR).No.4017 of 2014, on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

¶14

The petitioner suffered an order of eviction in R.C.No.3 of 2011 on the file of the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri. He has filed Rent Appeal vide R.A.(SR).No.4017 of 2014 in the Court of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District questioning the said eviction order. The petitioner also filed I.A.No.412 of 2014 in the said appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay of 293 days in filing the appeal. The only explanation offered by the petitioner for the substantial delay in filing the appeal was that after the case was reserved for judgment, he was not aware of its disposal and that he came to know about the disposal of the case in the month of April, 2013 and that as he was not well for a

¶15

period of three months, the delay occurred in filing the appeal.

¶16

The Court below has declined to accept this explanation and dismissed the application for condonation of delay on the ground that the petitioner has not filed any proof of his illness. It has observed that while the delay is 293 days, the petitioner has pleaded sickness only for three months. The petitioner has filed a copy of the purported Doctor Certificate, dated 24.08.2013. While he has pleaded before the lower Court that due to abdominal pain, fever etc., he was advised to take bed rest for three months, a perusal of the copy of the Doctor Certificate shows that the petitioner was under treatment for jaundice from 18.03.2013 to 24.08.2013 and he was advised bed rest. The petitioner has not pleaded that he suffered from jaundice as mentioned in the Doctor Certificate and the said Certificate did not refer to the abdominal pain and fever pleaded by the petitioner. Moreover, while the petitioner has pleaded that he was advised bed rest for three months, the Doctor Certificate has covered the period of more than five months. The petitioner has not filed any medical record such as medical prescriptions to prove that he has taken treatment for the alleged diseases.

¶17

These facts clearly show that the alleged sickness is just a ruse to overcome the long delay in filing the appeal. In my opinion, the lower Court has rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner as he has failed to offer any plausible explanation for condoning the long delay in filing the appeal.

¶18

For the above-mentioned reasons, the civil revision petition is without any merit and the same is dismissed.

¶19

As a sequel to dismissal of the civil revision petition, C.R.P.M.P.No.2773 of 2014 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶20

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

¶21

08^th July, 2014 VGB

J. Suresh, v. a. K. Satyanarayana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J. Suresh, v. a. K. Satyanarayana

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

Navayuva Enterprises, Vs M/s. Ritwik Projects Pvt.Ltd

M/s. Montage Manufacturer Private Limited., Vs -

M/s. TenXLabs Technologies Private Limited, Vs -

Mainampati Narasimulu Vs Mainampati Bhumaiah

Smt. Nandigam Vijaya Lakshmi Vs M/s. Shriram chit Pvt. Ltd.

Samala Prakash(died) per Lr a- 2 and 3 Vs Twin Cities Permanent Fund Ld