Dismissed

Mr.Mohd. Khasim, v. Syed Rahmath Ali

Telangana HC3 Dec 2014CRP/6633/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition filed by a defendant aggrieved by an order dismissing a petition to condone a 566-day delay in setting aside an ex parte decree. The Court found the delay unexplained and the trial court's dismissal of the condonation petition correct.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand dismissed.

Mr.Mohd. Khasim, Vs Syed Rahmath Ali — Execution and Attachment | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6633 OF 2012

¶3

O R D E R:

¶4

The Civil Revision Petition is filed by the defendant in O.S.No.48 of 2006, aggrieved by the Order dated 17.10.2012, passed in I.A.No.778 of 2008 in O.S.No.48 of 2006, by the Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad.

¶5

2) The brief averments are that the revision petitioner-defendant filed I.A.No.778 of 2008 in O.S.No.48 of 2006 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 566 days in presenting the application to set aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 12.06.2007. Learned Senior Civil Judge found that the day-to-day delay is not properly explained and recording the said finding the Court had dismissed the delay condonation petition.

¶6

3) Sri Abdul Muqeeth Qureshi, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, persuasively pleads that the delay in filing the delay condonation petition to set aside the ex parte decree had occurred only on account of the fact, the Advocate who appeared before the trial Court had not informed about the proceedings and further he is living at far away place and his advocate Sri B.Krishnanad returned the file refusing to further appear in the case. However, the Court had come to conclusion that it is solely on account of the fact that the advocate, who appeared, had not followed up the case and the suit came to be decreed, and the plaintiffs do not have any right title over the suit schedule property. Hence, he prays for allowing of the Civil Revision Petition.

¶7

4) Having considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and material from the record, I find that the

¶8

suit is of the year 2006 and the same came to be decreed on 12.06.2007. On behalf of the plaintiffs, two witnesses were examined and as many as nine documents were marked and in the suit, no Written Statement was also filed. The Court having no other alternative set ex parte the defendant on 29.09.2006 and thereafter evidence was taken and the suit came to be decreed on merits. In other words one can say that the suit was decreed on merits after having evidence. Further, the delay has not been explained properly. As a matter of fact, there is no explanation whatsoever. I am not satisfied with the grounds pleaded by the revision petitioner and I have not find any error in the order of the Court below in dismissing the petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

¶9

5) Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall also stand dismissed.

¶10

-----------------------------------CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J

¶11

Dated:03.12.2014. Ssv

Mr.Mohd. Khasim, v. Syed Rahmath Ali

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.Mohd. Khasim, v. Syed Rahmath Ali

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

Padugupadu Pacs, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal

The Regional Manager, Vs The Presiding Officer

Smt. Tirumala Venkata Satya Mutya Veni, Vs The Accountant General (Aande)

Syed Jaleel Ahmed Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. N. Prameela Vs The Child Development Project Officer

Smt.Sarala Jain Vs Sangu Gangathar