Allowed

Ramdeni Ratnamma and 2 others v. Vaviala Rajaiah and 6 others

Telangana HC6 Nov 2020CRP/681/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Civil Revision Petition and condoned a 292-day delay in filing an appeal under Section 115 of CPC and Section 5 of the Limitation Act, despite initial dismissal by the lower court, subject to payment of costs.

What did the court decide?

The second date of presentation was recognized to validate the appeal filing, and the delay was condoned.

Ramdeni Ratnamma and 2 others Vs Vaviala Rajaiah and 6… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER

¶3

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

¶6

CIVIL REVI S ION P ETITION NO: 681 OF 2020

¶7

Petition under Section^'1 15 of C.P.C against the Order daled 21-01-2020 in l. A. No. 171 of 2018 in Unregistered A.S. No. of 2018 of the Court of the Court of ll Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, at Jagtial.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Ramdeni Ratnamma, w/o. Kotaiah, aged 66 years, R/o. Rayapatnam Village, Dharmapuri Mandal, Jagtial Town, Jagtial District.

¶10

Gopati Rajaiah, s/o. Lachaiah, aged 71 years, Fyo. Rayapatnam Village, Dharmapuri l/andal, Jagtial Town, Jagtial District.

¶11

Dummani Mallaiah, s/o. Venkataiah, aged 56^years, Fl/o. Kannapalli Village, Dhandepalli Mandal, Mancherial District.

¶12

... Petitioners/Petitioners/Appellants

¶13

AND

¶14

Vaviala Rajaiah, s/o. Pochaiah, aged 57 years, Fl/o. Kothapalli, H/o. Stambampalli village, Dharmapuri Mandal, Now residing at Lothunoor Village, Gollapalli Mandal

¶15

Y aviala Sathaiah, s/o. Pochaiah, aged 37^years, Rl/o. Kothapalli, H/o. Stambampalli village, Dharmapuri [Vlandal, Now residing at Dhantampalli Village, Utnoor Mandal, Adilabad District.

¶16

Jangam Praveen, s/o. Satyanarayana, aged 40^years,Rl/o. Stabampalli village, Dharmapuri lvlandal.

¶17

Muthe Gurvaiah, s/o. Venkatraiah, aged 52 years, Rl/o. Kannapalli Village, Dhandepalli firlandal, Adilabad District.

¶18

Gangula Sudhakar, s/o. not known, aged 61 years, F|/o. H.No.3-1-249,Christian Colony, Karimnagar.

¶19

Boppu Laxman, s/o. not know, aged 51 years, r/ o. Rayapatnam Village, Dharmapuri Mandal.

¶20

The Special Dy. Collector, L.A.O. Ellampalli NTPC/Ramagundam ...Respondents/respondents/Respondents

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2O2O

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in O.S. No.13 of 2010 of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge at Jagtial, pending disposal of the C.R.P.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI G. VASANTHA RAYUDU

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2: SRI^P. V. SRINIVASA^RAO (NOT PRESENT)

¶25

Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.3 and^{7: NONEAPPEARED}

¶26

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶27

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE^{G. SRI DEVI} CML REVISION PETITION No.681 of²⁰²⁰

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

ln Aggrieved by the order, dated 21..01.2020, passed I.A.No.171 of 201,8 in Un-registered A.S.No. of 2018 on the file of the II-Additional District Judge at Karimnagar, wherein an application filed, under Section 5 of Limitation Act, by the petitioners/ defendant Nos.2,3 ancl 5 seeking to condone the c.lela1" of 292 days in prefelring appeal was dismissed, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed uncler Section 115 of C.P.C

¶30

The brief facts of the case are that respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein, who are the plaintiffs, filed O.S.No.13 of 2010 before the Senior Civil Judge,^jagtial, seeking declaration of title ancl recovery of possession of the suit schedule property. By its judgment and decree, dated 03.08.2017, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jagtial, allowed the said suit. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners/ defendant Nos.2,3 and 5 preferred arr appeal before the Il-Additional District Judge, Karimnagar at Jagtial. I{owever, as tlrere was a delay of 292 days in filing the appeal, the petitioners filed I.A.No.l71 of 2018 seeking to condone the. saicl delay. In the affidavit, it is stated by the petitioners/ clefendant Nos.2, 3 ancl 5 that right from filing of the suit, the i'r defendant has been looking after the suit proceedings and whenever they enquirecl him, he

¶31

¶32

used to inform them that the post of Presiding Officer of the trial Court was kept vacant and believing his words they could not approach the trial Court. It is further stated that recentiy the petitioners came to know about the passing of decree by the trial Court and by that time the period of limitation was exhausted and as such the said delay of 292 days in preferring the appeal has been occurred.

¶33

A counter came to be filed by the l.t respondent-plaintiff contending that even though the trial Court has given sufficient time for cross-exa mina tion and to adduce evidence, the petitioners/ defer.rdant Nos.2,3 and 5 did not led their evidence and as such the trial Court rightly' decreed the suit. It is further' contended that the petitioners had failed to explain the day-to-day delay and they have taken a false stand that as they are illiterates, the 1.t defendant in the suit has been looking after the Court proceedings and that the stand taken by the petitioners is not a valid ground for condoning the said abnormal delay

¶34

After considering the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel on either side, the learned ll-Additional District Judge, by order dated 21.01.2020, dismissed the aforesaid I.A.No.171 of 20'1.8. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioners/defendant Nos.2,3 and 5.

¶35

Caveat was filed by the respondents/^{plaintiffs, which was} put up in the file. When the matter^was taken up^{for hearingon} 1.5.09.2020 and 06.10.2020, there was no representation^{on behalf of} the respondents/ plaintiffs. Hence, heard the learned Counsel^for the petitioners and perused the record

¶36

Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the delay in filing the appeal is neither wilful nor wanton, but due to the circumstances explained in the afficlavit filecl in support of the application. It is further submitted that the petitioners are senior citizens and illiterates and they had no knowledge about the case and that they came to know about the case only when the respondents/ plaintif fs tried to vacate them from their possession forcibly. He further submitted that if the delay is not condoned, the petitioners would suffer irreparable loss and hardship.

¶37

ln Collector, Land Acquisitiotr, Anantnag o, Mst, Katiiil the Apex Court held that the expression'sufficient cause' employed by the legislature ln the Limitation Act is adequately elastic to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice that being the life purpose for the existence of the institution of Courts. It was further observecl that a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that:

¶38

' 1rce2;^{tLLL, soo sc}

¶39

¶40

1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.

¶41

1. Refusing to condone delay can result in meritorious matter being thror.t,n out at the very threshold and cause ofjustice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.

¶42

1. 'Every day's delay must be explained' does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. WIrv not everv hour's clelav, every second's delay? The rloctrine rnust bc applied in a lational common sense pragmatic rnanner.

¶43

-1) When substantial iustice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delav.

¶44

s) There is no prcsumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mnla fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk.

¶45

1. It must be grasped that^judicial is inspected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grouncls but because it is capable of removing injusticc and is expectcd to do so."

¶46

¶47

Relying on the aforesaid Judgment,^{the Apex Court in Sfale} of Bihar and others o, Kameshzoar Prasad Singh^{and anothel held}

¶48

as under:

¶49

"11. Power to condone the delay in approaching the Court has been conferred upon the Courts to enable them to do substantial^justice to parties by clisposing of matter^on merits."

¶50

In State of Nagaland o. Lipok Ao and others3 the Apex Court

¶51

held as under:

¶52

"Proof by sufficient cause is a condition precedent for exercise of the extraordinary discretion vested in the court. What counts is not the length of the delay but the sufficiency of the cause and shortness of the clelay is one of the circumstances to be takcn into account in using the discretion, What constitutes sufficient cause cannot be laid down by hard-and-fast rule section."

¶53

ln Perumon Bhagt;athy Deoastuom a. Bhargazti Ammaa lhe

¶54

Apex Court in Para No.9 held as under:

¶55

"The words^'sufficient cause for not making the application within the periocl of limitation' should be understood and applied in a reasonable, pragmatic, practical and liberal manner, clepending upon the facts and circumstances of the case, anc'l the type of case, The worcls 'sufficient cause' in Section 5 of Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice, when the delay is not on account of any dilatory

¶56

'(zooo)^{s scc sq}

¶57

' lzoosy^{: scL ssr}

¶58

'^{(2008)8 scc a2l}

¶59

¶60

tactics, want of bona fides, deliberate inaction or negligence on the part of the appellant."

¶61

ln Balwatrth Sitrgh i) lagdislt^{Siughs, the Apex Court}

¶62

observed as under:

¶63

"We may state that even if the term 'sufficient cause' has to receive liberal construction, it must squarely fall within the concept of reasonable time and proper conduct of the party concerned. The purpose of introducing liberal construction normally is to introduce the concept of 'reasonableness' as it is understood in its general connotation."

¶64

"The law of limitation is a substantive law and has definitc consequences on the right and obligation of party to arise. These principles should be adhered to and applied appropriatelv depending on the facts and circumstances of a given case. Once a valuable right has accrued in favour of one party as a result of the failure of the other party to explain the delay by showing sufficient cause and rts own conduct, it will be unreasonable to take away that right on the mere asking of the applicant, particularly when the delay is directly a result of negligence, default or inaction of that party. Justice must be done to both parties equally. Then alone the ends of justice can be achieved. If a party has been thoroughly negligent in implementing its rights and remedies, it will be equally unlair to deprive the other party of a valuable right that has accrued to it in law as a result of his acting vigilantly."

¶65

From the judgments of the Apex Court referred to above, it is clear that delay can be condoned if the circumstances indicate that meritorious matter would be thrown out and the cause of^justice ' (20 r0) 8 SCC 685

¶66

¶67

would be defeated, if the delay is not condoned. The Apex Court has categorically held that even if the delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decicled on merits after hearing the parties.

¶68

Admittedly, the suit was f iled for declaration of title and recovery of possession. It is stated bv the petitiorrers that the respondents/ plaintiffs filed the above suit only by taking inconsistent entries in the revenue records and that the petitioncrs have filed their written statements denying the case ol the respondents/ plaintiffs and also furnished the particulars of their purchase of the suit schedule property and that the judgment is not passed after full fledged trial. It is also statecl by the petitioners that they are senior citizens and illiterates and that the 1.t defendant has been Iooking after the suit proceeclings ancl recently they camL. to know about the judgment and c-lecree passed in the suit, ancl as such they could not file the Appeal Suit within the period of limitation. Therefore, i am of the view that the petitioners may be given an opportunity of right of appeal against the ludgment and decree of the trial Court on payment of costs.

¶69

Having regard to the principles laid clown by the Apex Court and taking into consideration the other facts and circumstances of the case, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and accordingly I.A. No.171 of 2018 is ordered and the clelay of (292) da,t,s in filing thc.

¶70

¶71

Appeal Suit is hereby condoned, subject to the condition of the petitioners/defendant Nos.2, 3 and 5 paying an amount of Rs.2000/- towards costs within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Out of Rs.2000f -, an amount of Rs.1000/- is to be deposited in favour of the Telangana High Court Legal Services Committee, Hyderabad and an amount of Rs.1000,/is to be deposited in favour of the Telangana High Court Advocates

¶72

Association, Hyderabad.

¶73

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶74

Sd/- B. SATYAVATHI ASSISTANT REGI R

//TRUE COPY//

SE OFFICER

To,

The ll Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, at Jaqtial.

¶79

The Secretary, Telangana High Court Legal Servict Committee, Hyderabad. 3. The S^e^cretary, ^Telangana High Court Advocates Association, Hyderabad. 4. One CC to Sri G. Vasantha Rayudu, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri P. V. Srinivasa Rao, Advocate IOPUC]

¶80