Allowed

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

Telangana HC6 Aug 2021CRP/2029/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a civil revision petition challenging the dismissal of a suit for default. The court held that the petitioner's non-appearance was not deliberate due to a family death, condoning the delay in restoring the suit.

What did the court decide?

The civil revision petition is allowed, setting aside the order of dismissal for default and restoring the suit.

Smt.G.K.Parvathamma Vs Income Tax Recovery Officer-Ii and 3… — Income Tax | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH GOURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶2

AT HYDERABAD^.

¶3

FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2029 OF 2018

¶7

Petition under Article 227 of lhe Constitution of lndia, aggrieved by the Order dated.07.02.2018 passed in 1A.No.1252 of 2017 in O.S.No.662 o'f 2011 on the file of the Court of the X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Smt G.K. Parvathamma, W/o. G.K. Vijay Bhaskar Rqddy, Aged about 48 years, Occ. Housewife, PJo.H.No. 19,D.No.2-191, SBI 1'' Colony, Adoni, Kurnool District, Andrhra Pradesh.

¶10

...Petitioner/Plaintiff

¶11

AND

¶12

1 lncome Tax Recovery Officer-ll,Company Range-ll, lV Floor, New Block, Room No.404, 1 21,N.H.Road,Chennai-600034.

¶13

Union of lndia, Secretary Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi

¶14

3 lGGl Resort lnternational Limited, No.T-18-A, Alsa IVlal Complex,^'149, tvlontieth Road,Egmore,Chennai-600008 represented by its Managing Director.

¶15

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.

¶16

...RespondentsiDefendants

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶18

Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the orders passed in 1A.No.1252 of 2O17 in O.S.No.662 ol 2011,daled07-02-201 8 on the file of the X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad,^pending disposal of the main Civil Revision Petition.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s SUNITHA MONDAL FOR SRI A. P. REDDY

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI VENKAT RAM REDDY FOR

¶21

SRI K. RAJI REDDY

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI VASANTHA RAO

¶23

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

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶26

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2029 of 2018

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

This revision is filed challenging the order dated 07,02.2018 in I.A.No.1252 of 2Ot7 in O.S.No.662 of 2011 passed by the X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereunder an application filed seeking condonation of delay in flling the petition to restore the suit was dismissed.

¶29

The petitio ner/p la intiff instituted a suit in O.S.No.662 of 2011 for declaration and injunction under Section 281 read with Rule 11(6) of the Second Schedule of Income Tax Act, 1961, against the respondents herein. The suit was dismissed was default on 26.70.2017 for non-appearance of the plaintiff and his counsel. An application in I.A.No.1252 of 201,7 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.L0.2017.

¶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 petitioner/pla intiff . It was stated in the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay petition that his family member, Mr. G. Kuber Reddy, died on 25.10.2017 and as instructed by the petition erlpla intiff, the advocate appearing on his behalf filed an adjournment petition on 26.70.2077. However, the learned trial Judge did not consider the same and dismissed the suit for default.

¶31

)

¶32

As it appears from the record, there is no counter filed 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

¶33

¶34

¶35

Reddy, learned counsel representing Mr, K. Raji Reddyf learned standing counsel for the respondent No_I, submitted that orders may be passed on merits. Mr. K. Vasantha Rao, Iearned 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,/p la int jff on 26.10.2017.

¶36

5 Though conditional order was passed by the Court below directing the plaintiff to proceed with trial on 26.10.2017, jt is a matter of record that the petitioner/plaintiff, through his advocate, filed a separate application on 26.10.2077 for adjournment of the case citing reason of death of one of his family member. In such clrcumstances, 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 the opinion that non-appearance of the petitioner/pla intiff was not deliberate, in view of the fact that there was a death in the family.

¶37

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,

¶38

if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶39

To,

¶40

orr,.roi?'i[efllX ,TRUE COPY' (>SECTION OFFICER

¶41

The X Additronal Chief Judge, City Civil Court. at Hyderabad. 2. '121 1.1.919 ,^N.H. Iur Road,Chennai-600034Recovery Officer-ll, M Company Ringe-ll, tV Floor, New Block, Room No.4O4,

¶42

Union of lndia, Secretary Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi 4. One CC to Sri A. P. Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri K. Vasantha Rao, Advo-ate [Oi]UCl 6. One CC to Sri K. Raji Reddy, Advocate tOpUCl 7. The Legal Services Authority, Ranga Reddy Di;trict. 8. The Advo.ates Bar Association, Ranga Reddy District. 9. Two CD Copies 10 One Spare Copy MMK TP

t--

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0610812021

ORDER

Esi-l
aP
.)
2 1 osT 20el o
.I'
r)t*
*
-ii

¶49

CRP.No.2029 of 2018

¶50

ALLOWING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITICIN .

¶51

et. toq\ro U

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

A Siva Reddy Vs Income Tax Recovery Officer-Ii