Allowed

A Siva Reddy v. Income Tax Recovery Officer-Ii

Telangana HC6 Aug 2021CRP/2028/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil revision petition, the High Court allowed the restoration of a suit dismissed for default. The Court held that the delay in filing the restoration application was not deliberate, citing a death in the plaintiff's family as a valid explanation, and ordered leniency.

What did the court decide?

Civil revision petition allowed; suit restoration order implied; costs awarded split between Legal Services Authority and Bar Association.

A Siva Reddy Vs Income Tax Recovery… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶2

AT HYDERABAD -

¶3

FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶7

CIVIL R EVIS ON PETITION NO: 2028 OF 20'18

¶8

Petition under Article 227 oI the Constitution of lndia aggrieved by the order dated 07.02.2018 in I.A.No.1254 of 2017 in O.S.No.666 of 2011, on the file of the Court of the X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶9

Between:

¶10

A. Siva Reddy, S/o. A.T. Veera Reddy, aged about 60 years, Occ: Business, R/o H No 21-22-24, N S.Nagar, Adoni, Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶11

,..PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF

¶12

AND

¶13

1 lncome Tax Recovery Officer-ll, Company Range-ll, lV Floor, New Block, Room No.404, 121, N.H. Road, Chennai-600034.

¶14

2 Union of lndia Secretary Department of Revenue, Ir/inistry of Finance, New Delhi.

¶15

lGGl Resorts lnternational Limited, No.T-18-A, Alsa Mal Complex, 149 lVlontieth Road, Egmor, Chennai-600008 represented by its Managing Director

¶16

4, M/s. Life Style Constructions, A partnership firm, having its office at H.No.6-2-42, A.C.Guards, Hyderabad represented by its Managing Partner, G.Srinivasa Reddy

¶17

...RESPONDENT'S/DEFENDANT'S

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the orders passed in 1.A.No.1254 of 2017 in O.S.No.666 of 2O11 daled 071021201 8 on the file of the court of the X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶20

For the Petitioner: SMT. SUNITHA MONDAL, Advocate for SRI A. P. REDDY

¶21

For the Respondent No.1: SRI VENKAT RAM REDDY, Advocate for SRI K. RAJI REDDY

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI K. VASANTHA RAO

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 4: NONE APPEARED

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{B. VIJAYSENREDDY}

¶26

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No'2O2a^{of 2O18}

¶27

98D.EB:

¶28

This revision is filed challenging the order^{dated 07.02.2018in} I.A.No.1254 of 2Ol7 in O.S.No.666 of 2011^{passed bythe} X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad,^{rtrhereunderan} applicatron filed seeking condonation of^{delay ln filing the petition to} i-esiore the suit was dismissed.

¶29

The petitioner/plaintiff instituted a suit^{in O.S.No.666of} 2011 for declaration and injunction under Section^{281 read with Rule} 11(6) of the Second Schedule of Income^{Tax Act, 1961, againstthe} respondents herein. The suit was dismissed^{was default on 26.10.2017} for non-appearance of the^plaintiff and his counsel.^{An applicationln} I.A.No.1254 of 2O1,7 was filed seeking to condone^{the delay of three} days in filing a restoration^petition under Order iX^{Rule 9 CPC and for} setting aside dismissal order dated 26.tO.20t7.

¶30

Mr. Sunitha Mondal, learned counsel representing Mr.^A.P' Reddy, learned counsel for the^petitioner, submitted^{that there was} death in the family of the petitio ner/pla intiff . It^{wasstated in the} affidavit filed in support of the condone delay^{petition that his famlly} member, Mr, G, Kuber Reddy, died on 25.10.2017^{and as instructed} by the pelitioner/plaintiff, the advocate appearing^{on his behalffiled} an adjournment petition on 26.10.2017.^{However,the learnedtrial} ludqe did not consider the same and dismissed the^{suit for default.}

¶31

As it appears from the record, there is^{no counterfiled by the} respondents before the Court below. Even in this revision,^{there is no} appearance on behalf of the respondents No.2^{and 4. Mr. Venkat Ram}

¶32

Reddy, learned counsel representing lv1r. K. Raji Reddy, learned standing counsel for the respondent No.1, submitted that orders may be passed on merits. N4r. K. Vasantha Rao, learned counsel for the respondent No.3, stated that the petitioner was not diligent in pursuing the suit before the Court below. However, the learned counsel does not dispute the fact that the application for adjournment of the case was filed by the petitioner/pla intiff on 26.t0.2017.

¶33

Though conditional order was passed by the Court below directing the plaintiff to proceed with trial on 26.L0.2011, it is a matter of record that the petitioner/plaintiff, through his advocate, filed a separate application on 26.70.20L7 for adjournment of the case citing reason of death of one of his family member. In such circumstances, the Court below should have taken a lenient view in condoning the delay of three days in filling the restoration petition. This Court is of lhe opinion that non-appearance of the pet tioner/plaintiff was not deliberate, in view of the fact that there was a death in the familv.

¶34

In view of the above, the civil revision petition is allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/-, out of which, Rs.2,500/- to be remitted to the Legal Services Authority, Ranga Reddy District and Rs.2,500/- to be remitted to the Advocates Bar Association, Ranga Reddy District. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶35

SD/- K, SAILESHI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY' t-a

¶36

SECTION OFFICER

¶37

To,

¶38

The X Additional Chief^{Judge, City Civil Court,Hyderabad}

¶39

One CC to Sri A. P.^{Reddy,Advocate} [OPUC]

¶40

aJ, One CC to Sri K. Vasantha^Rao,Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri K. Raji^{Reddy,Advocate} [OPUC] E The Legal Services Authority,^{Ranga Reddy District.}

¶41

¶42

The Advocates Bar Association, Ranga Reddy District.

¶43

The lncome Tax Recovery Officer-ll, Company Range-ll, IV Floor, New Block, Room No.404, 121 , N.H. Road, Chennai-OOOCiSa.

¶44

B The secretary, Department of Revenue, Union of rndia, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi.

¶45

Two CD Copies

¶46

'10. One Spare Copy

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0610812021

) )

ORDER

SlAIE
1
(
:)ow 1t sEP$tl
c.r s
*
<i
,

¶54

CRP.No.2028 of 2018

¶55

ALLOWING THE CRP

¶56

))
)nl -lt

A Siva Reddy v. Income Tax Recovery Officer-Ii

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A Siva Reddy v. Income Tax Recovery Officer-Ii

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

Sri Sanjay Agarwal Vs Sri Bhupendra Narayan Surti

Raunak Bhandari and another Vs Sri ChamarthiMallikarjuna Ramakrishna and 4 others

Chintha Narsubai, Karimnagar Dist and Two Others Vs Deepak Upadhyay, Adilabad Dist

Dr K.v.Surya Prakasa Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Alena Ranjan Vs Daniel Anand Kumar

Smt.G.K.Parvathamma Vs Income Tax Recovery Officer-Ii and 3 Others