Dismissed

Maruthi v. Kondiba (died)

Telangana HC5 Sept 2014CRP/2902/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed the civil revision petition regarding the casual condonation of a 430-day delay. The Single Judge found that the civil court could condone delay upon payment of costs regarding agt. illiterate agriculturists, allowing petitions to raise objections regarding heirship later.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed with observation that petitioners can raise heirship objections later. No order as to costs.

Maruthi Vs Kondiba (died) — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶2

C.R.P. No.2902 OF 2014

¶3

ORDER:-

¶4

The Civil Revision Petition filed against the Order dated 10.07.2014 in I.A.No.110 of 2014 in O.S.No.22 of 2011 passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Bichkunda.

¶5

The grievance of the revision petitioner is the delay of 430 days was condoned in a very casual manner notwithstanding that there was no sufficient reason stated in the petition affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the petition filed by the respondents herein. Further he would contend that the respondent Nos.2 to 6 are not legal heirs of the 1^st respondent and further without establishing that they are legal heirs, the Court below ought not to have entertained the delay condonation petition for seeking setting aside of the dismissal of the suit for default on 01.03.2013.

¶6

In the affidavit filed in support of the petition seeking condonation of delay, it has been stated that the respondents came to be aware of the dismissal of the suit for default on 01.03.2013 when they were informed of the said fact on 11.04.2014 by Sri Sankara Rao Patil, Advocate. This aspect was denied by the petitioners in the counter affidavit.

¶7

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶8

On perusal of the affidavit filed by the respondent Nos.2 to 6 seeking to condone the delay, it is clear that it does not contain much details and is laconic. However, the fact that the respondents came to be aware of the dismissal of the suit only on there being informed by the Advocate Sri Sankara Rao Patil has

¶9

not been categorically denied and there is no reason for this court to disbelieve the said averment. Further, one should not loose sight of the fact that the petitioners are illiterates and agriculturists living in a remote village. In that view of the matter, the condonation of the delay by the Court below on payment of costs cannot be found fault with. However, it is made clear that the petitioners shall be entitled to take all the objections including the objection with regard to the claim of the respondent Nos.2 to 6 as legal heirs.

¶10

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with the above observation at the admission stage itself. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall also stand dismissed.

¶11

____________________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J

¶12

Date: 05.09.2014. Ssv

¶13

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶14

C.R.P. No.2902 OF 2014

¶15

Date:05.09.2014

¶16

Ssv

Maruthi v. Kondiba (died)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maruthi v. Kondiba (died)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Ashok Vs The Government of Telangana

Smt. P. Sivaleela Devi, Vs The Andhra Pradesh Dairy Development

Ajundas Alreja, Vs Golla Narsaiah

Methri Gangadhar Vs B. Devidas

P.Narsingam, S/o Mallaiah Vs The Fisheremen Industries Cooperative Society Ltd.

Nulakani Veeranagaiah, Vs The Mandal Revenue Officer