Allowed

Sri Gudipati Eko Narayana v. Sri Vallapureddy Ravinder Reddy, And 6 Others

Telangana HC13 Aug 2020CRP/10/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a civil revision petition challenging the dismissal of an application to condone a 209-day limitation delay in filing an appeal. Satisfying itself that the delay was due to the serious illness of the petitioner's wife, the Court held that substantial justice outweighs technical considerations and condoned the delay.

What did the court decide?

The civil revision petition was allowed, and the delay of 209 days in filing the appeal was condoned by setting aside the impugned order.

Sri Gudipati Eko Narayana Vs Sri… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON,BLE DT. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 10 OF 2020

¶6

(Petition under Section 1 1 5 of CPC to revise the order dated 07.08.20'19 made in

¶7

l.A.No.3B7 of 2019 in ASSR.No.1047 oI 2019 on the file of the Court of the District Judge at Nalgonda)

¶8

Betwee n:

¶9

Sri Gudipati Eko Narayana, S/o. Rama Lingaiah, aged about 64 years Occ. business, R/o. Srinagar colony Nalgonda town and district.

¶10

...pETt,oNERi PETITION ER/APPELLANT

¶11

AND

¶12

Sri Vallapureddy Ravinder Reddy, S/o. Sri Laxma Reddy, aged about 47 years Occ. business, R/o. Near Petrol Bunk Opp. lt/.G. University, Yellareddygudem village Narketpally mandal, Nalgonda district.

¶13

Sri Nakirekanti Linga Swamy, S/o. Sri Chennaiah, aged about 48 years Occ. Agriculture, R/o. H.No.6-8-7 Ravindranagar, Nalgonda town and district.

¶14

Sri Yedulla Sridhar Reddy, S/o. Sri Mohan Reddy, aged about 47^years Occ. business, Rio. Plot No.18, Balajinagar Hyderabad Road, Nalgonda Town.

¶15

Sri Yedulla Venkat Reddy, S/o. Sri Mohan Reddy, aged about 51 years Occ. business, R/o. H.No.6-6 (New), Ravindranagar, Hyderabad Road, Nalgonda Town.

¶16

Sri l\rlendu Mallikarjuna Reddy, S/o. Sri Govinda Reddy, aged about 55 years Occ. Agriculture, R/o. H.No.6-6-'1 103 Tirumala Nagar, Nalgonda Town.

¶17

Sri Mandadi Venkat Reddy, S/o. Sri Narsi Reddy, aged about 53^years Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Arjalabavi village Nalgonda mandal and district.

¶18

Sri Jilala Anli Reddy, S/o. Sri Roshi Reddy, aged about 49^years Occ. business, R/o. Girakalabavi Gudem, Nalgonda mandal and district.

¶19

...RESpoNDENTsi

¶20

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances^statedin the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be^pleased to^{pass an order} suspending the operation of the^judgment and decree^{d1.191O412018passed in} O S.No.'l 19 of 2010 on thefile of Junior Civil Judge,^Nalgonda.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SHYAM S.^AGRAWAL

¶24

Cou nse I for Respondent:^----

¶25

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶26

THE HON,BLE DT. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

¶27

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1O of 2O2O

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

This Civil Revision Petition, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 190B, is Filed by the^{petitioner/defendant} No.1, challenging the order, dated 07.08.2019,^passed in I.A.No.387 of 2019 in A,S.(SR) No.1047 of 2019 by the Principal District Judge, Nalgonda, whereby, the petition filed by the^{petitioner/defendant} No.1 under Order XLI Rule 34(1) of CPC for condonation of delay of 209 days in filing the subject appeal, was dismissed.

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the^{petitioner/defendant} No.1 and^perused the record. The material^placed on record reveals that notices on respondent Nos.2, 4, 6 and 7 were served. In spite of the same, they did not choose to enter appearance. The notices initially sent to respondent Nos.1, 3 and 5 to the address mentioned in the Original Suit returned unserved with^postal endorsement 'No such addressee'. Thereafter, this Court, vide order, dated 18.05.2020, permitted the petitioner/deFendant No.1 to take out personal notice on the counsel on record for the said respondents before the Court below. The learned counsel for the petitioner/deFendant No.1 filed a Memo in USR No.20248 of 2020 along with the postal track record showing that notices sent to the counsel on record for respondent Nos.1,3 and 5 were served. Under these circumstances, the notices on respondent Nos.1, 3 and 5 are deemed to be served.

¶31

¶32

Initially, the respondent Nos.2 to 7 herein/plaintiffs^{filed the} subject Original Suit in O.S.No.119 of 2010 before the trial^Court against the^petitioner herein/defendant^{No.1 and} the^respondent No.1 herein/defendant No.2. The said suit was decreed on merits. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein/defendant No.1 preferred an appeal along with the subject I.A.No.3B7 of 2019 for condonation of delay of 209 days in^preferring the appeal. Vide, impugned order, the said application was dismissed by the Court below, Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/defendant No.1 preferred this Civil Revision Petition.

¶33

4, The learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.1 would contend that the^{petitioner/defendant} No.1 and his wife are senior citizens. The wiFe of the petitioner/defendant No.1 was ill and the petitioner/defendant No.1 was made to go around the doctors and hospitals for getting her wife treated. In that connection, the delay of 209 days in filing the appeal occurred. In the affidavit filed in support of the subject LA.No.3B7 of 2079, the petitioner/defendant No. t has clearly explained the circumstances under which he could not file the appeal in time, but the Court below erroneously held that except bald statements, the reason for the delay was not properly explained. The respondents herein obtained decree in the subject suit by playing fraud upon the petitioner/defendant No.1 and as such, the petitioner/defendant No.1 has got good chances of success in the appeal. No prudent person can afford to allow the limitation for filing the appeal to expire, when he has got a good case in his favour. The delay was neither intentional nor wanton, but for the illness of the wife of petitioner/defendant No.1. The

¶34

Court below failed to appreciate that as per the settled legal principles, the Courts have to be liberal in condoning the delay in filing the appeal/ more particularly, in first appeal, and ultimately prayed to set aside the impugned order and allow the Civil Revision Petition as orayed fo r.

¶35

The law on the aspect of condonation of delay is well settled. Thls Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court have been repeatedly pointing out that Courts must adopt liberal approach in matters of condonation of delay, where there are^justifiable grounds. If the reasons for the delay are bona fide and the applicant does not derive any benefit because of the delay, the Courts must condone the delay by adopting liberal approach. Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of^justice being defeated. When substantial justice and technical considerations are^pitted against each other, cause of substantial^justice deserves to be^preferred, so that the other side cannot claim to have vested^{right in injustice} being done, because of non-deliberate delay.^{There is no} presumption that delay has occasioned deliberately, or^{on account} of culpable negligence, or on^{accounl of mala fides, unless proven} otherwise. It must be born in^{mind that judiciary is respected not} for its^power to legalize^{injustice on technicalgrounds, but because} it is capable of removing^{injustice, which lt is expected to do so'} Hence, the Courts must^adopt a^{j ustice-oriented approach,when} there is sufficient canae for^{condoning the delay in filing the} appeal.

¶36

¶37

In the instant case, the material^placed on^{recordreveals} that both the^{petitioner/defendant} No.1 and his wife are^senior citizens. The^{petitioner/defendant} No.1 had filed the^medical certificate, dated 28.12.2019, issued by Dr.G.Krishnama Chary, M.S., of G.K.Hospitals, Nalgonda, stating that the wife of the petitioner/defendant No.1 is suffering from severe Grade IV Rheumatoid Arthritis, crippling disability and was under his treatment from August, 2018, till date. It was further stated in the said Medical Certlficate that she requires home support system, personal attention and physiotherapy. As per the submissions of the learned counsel For the petitioner/defendant No.1 and the material on record, the petitioner/defendant No.1 was made to go around the doctors and hospital for treatment of his wife and in that^process, the delay occurred. In vrew of the said submission coupled with the Medical Certificate, dated 28.12,2019, the petitioner/defendant No.1 going around the hospitals and doctors for treatment oF his wife cannot be ruled out. Moreover, it is fairly conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.1 that he ought to have filed the Medical CertiFicate, dated 28.72.2019, before the Court below, but he did not do so. Further, the delay is not abnormal and if it is condoned, no prejudice would be caused to the respondents. On the other hand, it would enable both the parties to have their dispute decided on merits, which course would sub-serve the ends of justice. Under these circumstances, this Court is satisfied that sufficient cause is shown by the petitioner/defendant No.1 for condoning the delay of 209

¶38

¶39

days in filing the appeal. The petition merits consideration and is liable to be allowed.

¶40

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed by setting aside the order, dated 07.08.2019,^passed in I.A.No.3B7 of 2019 in A S.(SR) No.1047 oF 2019 by the Principal Distrlct ludge, Nalgonda. Consequently, the delay of 209 days in filing the subject A.S.(SR) No.1047 of 2019 is condoned.

¶41

The Civil Revision Petition ls, accordingly, allowed. No costs Miscellaneous petitions, if any,^pending in this Civil Revision

¶42

Petition, shall stand closed.

¶43

sd/^{. N. CHANDRASHEKAR} AS SISTANT^{REGIS T}

¶44

//TRUE^COPY'

¶45

SECTION^OFFICER

¶46

Onc f:rir^{cop) to thc IlOl't'BLE Dr' JL STI(E SllA'Nll:El\lAKTIIF'll} (For I lis Lortlship's^{Kindl'e rrrsal)}

¶47

¶48

The District^{Judge at Nalgonda'} 2. 3. +?,j5.9?'J::retary,^{union or lndia' r/linistrv or Law'Justrce andcompanv} Affairs,^{New Delhi} \dvocates^{Association Library, HighCourt Buildings'}

¶49

4 The Secretary,^Telanganar Hvderabad

¶50

E The Secretary'^{Andhra Pradesh Advocates Association Library' High Court} A,^ilO-, n;.^{v"1,ga pudi' Amaravat,qouo"rt"} tO^{p U Cl}

¶51

one Ce^{to Sri ShYam s ag} 7. Two CD^CoPies

NNBC

HIGH COURT

Dr.SA,J

DATED: 1310812020

H r: S T4 15
c
O 01 sEP 2020 c. 7 I
* {=
r-)

ORDER

CRP.No.10 of²⁰²⁰

ALLOWING^{THE CRP}

WITHOUT^COSTS

Sri Gudipati Eko Narayana v. Sri Vallapureddy Ravinder Reddy, And 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Gudipati Eko Narayana v. Sri Vallapureddy Ravinder Reddy, And 6 Others

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

Annamchinni Venkateswar Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Chinthapanti Devaiah and 2 Others Vs The State of Telangana and another

Mrs. Poosa Shanmukhi Vs Poosa Goutham Varma

K.E.Gopinath Vs State of Telangana

Shaik Arif Mohammed Vs The State of Telangana

Sri. Pakala Rambabu Vs The State of Telangana