Dismissed

Karnati Rama Devi v. Silveru Satyanarayana

Telangana HC10 Jul 2014CRP/4289/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the civil revision petition seeking condonation of delay in setting aside an ex parte decree. The learned District Judge had rejected the petitioner's plea regarding health and negligence, finding the delay unjustifiable, leading this court to refuse any interference.

What did the court decide?

The civil revision petition was dismissed; the challenge to the order rejecting the belated application for setting aside the ex parte decree was rejected.

Karnati Rama Devi Vs Silveru Satyanarayana — Specific Performance | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

C.R.P.No.4289 of 2013

¶3

Date : 10-7-2014

¶4

Between : Smt. Karnati Rama Devi .. Petitioner and Silveru Satyanarayana .. Respondent

¶5

Counsel for petitioner : Sri A. Purushotham Reddy Counsel for respondent : Sri J. Aswini Kumar

¶6

The Court made the following:

¶7

ORDER:

¶8

This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order dated 26-7-2013 in I.A.No.3796 of 2010 in O.S.No.987 of 2007 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶9

The respondent filed the above mentioned suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 20-9-2005 in respect of Plot Nos.2 and 3 in Sy.No.155, each admeasuring 266 sq. yards, situated at Amangal village, Hayathnagar Mandal Ranga Reddy District. The petitioner entered appearance, but for non-filing of the written statement, by order dated 18-4-2008, she was set exparte. The petitioner filed an application for setting aside the said exparte order. As the petitioner failed to appear before the Court even subsequently, exparte decree was passed on 16-7-2009. After receiving the notice in E.P.No.4/2010, the petitioner filed an application for setting aside the exparte decree. She has also filed I.A.No.3796 of 2010 for condonation of delay of 430 days in filing the application for setting aside the exparte decree. In the affidavit filed in support of the said application, the petitioner has pleaded two reasons for the delay, namely, that she suffered from health problems for which she has undergone surgery and that her Advocate was negligent in pursuing her cause in the case. Having considered the explanation of the

¶10

petitioner, the learned District Judge rejected the petitioner’s pleas with the following reasoning :

¶11

“Having carefully perused the material on record, I have no hesitation in holding that the so called ground of sickness preventing the petitioner/defendant from pursuing her case is not well founded. The petitioner/defendant had undergone surgery for Hysterectomy and Hernia as long back as in December 2007 and was required to take rest for about 3 months, which period expires by about March, 2008. From March 2008 till October 2010, no satisfactory material is placed on record for holding that she was prevented from any just and reasonable cause from taking the steps to set-aside the exparte decree. Blame is put at the threshold of the advocates without any substance and basis. It is not as though the petitioner/defendant had no male support. She is a married woman and her husband is very much available for pursuing the case, if really she is inclined to do so. While it is no doubt true that the Court should be liberal in appreciating the applications U/s.5 of the Limitation Act, but at the same time the person who approaches the Court belatedly with false contentions and without any justifiable cause cannot be shown indulgence. The petitioner/defendant is a housewife and she claims to have appeared before the Court in the suit as long back as in December 2007 and also got the Vakalat filed. Thereafter, the matter was not at all pursued diligently and the so called treatment was completed by December 2007 itself and she was discharged from the hospital. There are no merits in the petition and no satisfactory grounds are made out to condone the inordinate delay of 432 days in filing the petition under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to set-aside the exparte decree dt.16-07-2009. The Point is answered accordingly.”

¶12

On a careful consideration of the reasoning of the learned District Judge, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order under revision. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶13

As a sequel to the dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition, CRPMP No.5826 of 2013 filed for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.

¶14

Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy

¶15

Date : 10-7-2014 AM

Karnati Rama Devi v. Silveru Satyanarayana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnati Rama Devi v. Silveru 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

Lepl Projects Limited, Vs -

K Krishna Reddy Vs K Satyanarayana Reddy

Northwood Constructions India Private Limited Vs -

K.V.R. Kameswar Rao Vs K Vasumathi Devi

Mohd. Saifuddin Farooq, Vs Sri. Mohd. Fazl Ur Rahman

Deshavath Ramulu Bavoji Vs Lotavat Somla