Dismissed

Gabale Suryakath v. Kotha Vijaya Sarathi

Telangana HC18 Jul 2014CRP/2097/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses a civil revision petition against a lower court order refusing to condone a 138-day delay in filing an application to set aside an ex parte order. The High Court found no bonafides in the petitioners, noting a lack of medical proof and the inactivity of a son. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Gabale Suryakath Vs Kotha Vijaya Sarathi — Execution and Attachment | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2097 OF 2014

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners/Judgment Debtors questioning the order dated 05.06.2013 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Bodhan, Nizamabad, in E.A.No.19 of 2009 in E.P.No.5 of 2008 in O.S.No.29 of 2007, wherein and whereby the Court below had refused to condone the delay of 138 days in filing the application seeking to set aside the ex parte order dated 11.11.2008.

¶5

2) In support of the delay condonation petition filed by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act before the Court below, the 1^st petitioner had stated that he was suffering with jaundice and on account of the same he was unable to give instructions to his counsel and thereby the petitioners could not file the counter in the E.P.No.5 of 2008 in O.S.No.29 of 2007. Respondent/Decree Holder filed his counter in E.A.No.19 of 2009 and resisted to allow the application to condone the delay.

¶6

3) The court below on perusing the record found that finally Vakalat came to be filed by one counsel and later other counsel came on record and thereby it indicates that the petitioners are aware of the proceedings that are pending in the court. It was further stated that even after sale process was initiated about the land situated in Sy.No.67 of Tarpha Chekki, Bodhan Mandal, there was no effort on the part of the petitioners to file counter. Further, as a matter of fact in E.P.No.3 of 2008, the land has been put to auction, but the petitioners failed to file their counter. No medical record was also filed by the petitioners to show that at the relevant point of time, 1^st petitioner was suffering from Jaundice and as such he could not approach his counsel and got filed the counter before the Court below. Even when

¶7

the 1^st petitioner was suffering from Jaundice and he could not approach his counsel and give instructions, what prevented the 2^nd petitioner who is aged about 32 years being the son of the 1^st petitioner to pursue the matter with their counsel. There is no explanation offered on behalf of the 2^nd petitioner. All these aspects have been duly considered by the Court below and the Court below had rightly refused to condone the delay of 138 days in filing application to set aside the ex part order dated 11.11.2008. The suit is of the year 2007 and even as per the very petition filed by the petitioners, it is clear that the suit itself came to be decreed on 28.09.2007 and judgment and decree had become final, which again goes to show that there are no bonafides in the petition. I see no reasons to interfere with the impugned order of the Court below in refusing to condone the delay.

¶8

4) Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending in this revision petition shall stand closed.

¶9

____________________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM Date:04.07.2014 Gk.

¶10

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶11

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2097 OF 2014

¶12

Date:18.07.2014.

¶13

Gk.

Gabale Suryakath v. Kotha Vijaya Sarathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gabale Suryakath v. Kotha Vijaya Sarathi

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

Sri Balaji and Company Vs J Ramesh

Mahent Ravinder Dass Udasin Chela of Vs The Chairman

Sheikh Qutubuddin Vs Goli Vishwanatham

B.L. Prasad, Vs Mr. Rajeshwar Tiwari

Gutti Sivasankara Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. Loka Laxmi Vs Smt. Jaya