Allowed

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

Telangana HC6 Aug 2021CRP/793/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision allowed the petition against the dismissal of an application for condonation of delay under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The High Court held that dismissing such an application on merits was unsustainable when the petition was legally non-maintainable. The suit is to be registered, but merits on limitation will be framed as a separate issue.

What did the court decide?

The civil revision petition is allowed; the suit is ordered to be registered; the merits part of the lower order is set aside; a separate issue regarding limitation exclusion is to be framed.

Dr K.v.Surya Prakasa Rao Vs The State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURI FOF AI HYLIfABIATE^{OF TELANGANA}

¶2

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

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No : 793 OF 2019

¶6

Petition under Article 227 ol the Constitution of lndia aggrieved by the order dated 12-02-2019 of Unregd l.A.No. (C.F.R) No. 5370 of 2018 in Unregd O.S.No. (S.R.) No.108 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Judge, Karimnaga r.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Dr K.V.Surya Prakasa Rao, S/o K. Gopal Rao, Aged about 63 years, R/o Flat No. 17, North Avenue, Saraswathi Nagar, Karimnagar Town, Karimnagar District. Presently Residing at C/o K.V. Raidu, Samatha Narsing Home, F/o House No. 7810-415, Syamala Nagar, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District.

¶9

...PETITIONERYPLAINTIFF

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Rep. by Chief Secretary, Secretariat,^Hyderabad,

¶12

The Prinicipal Secretary,^(Home Department) State of^{Telangana,Secretariat,} Saifabad, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Commissioner of Police, Karimnagar,^{Police Commissionerate, Karimnagar} District. (The Then Superintend of Police^Karimnagr)

¶14

The District Collector, Karimnagar,^{KarimnagarDistrict.}

¶15

Smt. Smitha Sabarwal, l.A.S, W/o^{AkuluSabaruval,Aged about 41 years,Occ.} Govt Employee, Secretary Telangana State,^{Secretariat,Hyderabad.}

¶16

The Police Station Karimnagar ll^{Town, rep by StationHouseOfficer, Karimnagar} Town and District.

¶17

K. Srinivas, S/o Not known, Aged about^{50 years, Occ. Inspector of Police,Il} Town Police Station, at Karimnagar^{Town and District.}

¶18

B. Rachuri Lavanya OR Padma,^{W/o Rajendhar, Aged about 35 years, Occ. House} Wife, R/o Pochanimavada, Peddapalli Village And^{Mandal, KarimnagarDistrict.}

¶19

RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI E. V.^{V. S. RAVI KUMAR}

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents: GP^{FORARBITRATION(TG)}

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

THE HON'BLE SRI^{JUSTICE B, VI]AYSENREDDY}

¶24

CIVI REVISIO PETITION No.793 of²⁰¹⁹

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

This revision is filed challenging the order^{dated 12.02.2019in} I.A.(CFR).No.537O of 20tB in OS(SR).No.108 of^{2019 passedby the} Principal D istrrct Judge, Karimnagar.

¶27

The petitloner/plaintiff instituted a suit in OS(SR).No.108 of 2019 for damages of Rs.1,00,00,000/- along with 18o/o p.a. for the malicious prosecution against the respondents. In the cause of action column, the petitioner stated that the cause of action initially arose on 13.11.2011 when a criminal case was registered against him; he was remanded to judicial custody; the police filed final report on 02.72.2071, on 09.12.2016 when judgment (acquittal) was rendered; on 02.06.2077, when the petitioner filed the writ petition, which was dismissed on 13.07.2018 as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh suit; on 25,09.2018 when the legal notice was issued by the plaintiff and the cause of action is still continuing.

¶28

The petitioner filed an application in IA(CFR).No.5370 of 2018 for condonation of delay of 423 days under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The Court below dismissed the application holding that the provision under Section 14 of the Limitation Act does not deal with condonation of delay; it only permits exclusion of time during which the plaintiff was prosecuting another civil suit in a Court where such proceeding is prosecuted in good faith in a Court which does not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit. However, the Court below went on to observe that as per Section 74 of the Lirnitation Act, the time for filing of the suit expired on 08.72.2077 since criminal case came to be disposed of on 09.12,2016 a&el-petitioner was acquitted. It was

¶29

further observed that the^{plaintiff instead of instituting a suit,} approached the High Court^{by filing writ petition,which was withdrawn} later. The Court below^{gave a finding that filing a writ petition before} the Hlgh Court and^{getting it dismissedas withdrawn cannot be} equated with that^{of a civil proceedingsbeing prosecuted relatingto} the same matter^{in issue or for the samerelief, with due diligence,in} good faith, bonafide in a Court^{withoutjurisdiction to entertain it, as} defined under Section^{14 of the Limitation Act. The objection takenby} the office for registration^{of suit was upheld by the Court below'}

¶30

This Court is of the opinion^{that the order of the Court belowis} unsustainable,^{Having pointed out that a petition under Sectlon 14 of} the Limitation^{Act iS not maintainab|eto seek condonation of delay,} the Court below^{should not have made further observationson merits'} Itneedstobenotedthatanapplication,whichisnotmaintainable underlawcannotbedismissedonmerits.Inanyevent,whetherthe petitionerpurSUedSuChlitigationwithduediligenceoringoodfaithor for any other^{reasonand whether the wrlt petitionfiled by the} petitioner and later withdrawn^{are for bonafide reasons or not and} whetherthetimeconsumedforpursuingtheWritpetitionisliablefor exclusion under^{Section 14 of the Limitationact has to be decidedin} the main suit after^{framing relevant issue in that regard ' As a matter} of fact, the^{applicationin IA(CFR).No.5370 of 2018 was not necessary} to be filed^{by the petitio n erlpla intiff and as correctly held by the Court} below was not maintainable.^{The remainingpart of the order of the} Court below^{on merits is set aside'}

¶31

The civil revision^{petition is allowed' The suit in OS(SR)'No'108} of 2019 shall^{be registered. However, it is made clear that this Courtis} not making^{observations with regard to the issue of limitation'}

¶32

¶33

After the suit is^{reqistered,the Court belowshall frame a separate} issue, as observed^{above, as to whether the petitioner is entitled for}

¶34

exclusion of time under^{Section14 of the Limitation Act'}

¶35

Pending miscellaneous^{petitions, ifany, shall stand closed'}

¶36

There shall be no^{orderas to costs}

SD/.K.ONESIM

ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

,TRUE COPY//

ii')

¶41

SECTION OFFICER

¶42

To,

¶43

The Principal District^{Judge, Karimnagar'}

¶44

One CC to Sri^{E. V. V. S. Ravi Kumar, Advocate[OPUC]}

¶45

Two CCs to GP^{for Arbitration, High Court for the State of Telanganaat}

Hyderabad. [OUT]

4 Two CD CoPies

5 One Spare^CoPY

s^br

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0610812021

ORDER

.; 'i-;Al a
,J 25 Attzttl
*
i C.

¶54

CRP.No.793 of 2019

¶55

ALLOWING THE CRP

¶56

tl
<br>

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Alena Ranjan Vs Daniel Anand Kumar

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

A Siva Reddy Vs Income Tax Recovery Officer-Ii