Allowed

Satyanarayana Pitty v. md. Abdul Abbas Khan

Telangana HC1 Jul 2022CRP/5357/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the civil revision petition challenging the dismissal of an application for condoning delay in filing an appeal. The court condoned a 211-day delay, holding the reasons of the ill health of the appellant sufficient and rejecting the appellate court's hyper-technical approach.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition allowed; impugned order set aside; delay in preferring appeal condoned.

Satyanarayana Pitty Vs md. Abdul Abbas Khan — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[^320e ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE DT. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶7

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 5357 OF 2018

¶8

Petition under Section^'1 15 CPC to revise the order daled 2410412018 in lA No.519/2017 in RASR No.3189/2017 of the Chief Judqe, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Satyanarayana Pitty, S/o. Late Narayandas Pitty, Aged about 78 years, OccBusiness, PJo.H.No.6-3-121911110, Street No.1, Uma Nagar, Begumpet, Hyderabad-10,

¶11

Sanjay Pitty, S/o. Satyanarayana Pitty, Aged about 47 years, Occ- Business, Rr/o.H.No.6-3-121e11t1o,streetNo.'1,r.r*".y.fli?iry8ft or,ft #[!"if.&*,

¶12

AND

¶13

Md. Abdul Abbas Khan, S/o. Late Mohd. Abdul Sattar Khan, Aged about 42 years, Occ- Business, Rl/o.Shop No.15-5-65/16, Afzal Gunj, Hyderabad

¶14

...RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶16

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 condone delay of 40 days in filing the Representation of the above cRPSR.NO.28552t2018.

¶17

C.T. FOR l.A.Nos.1/'19.2/19 and 3/19:

¶18

Between:

¶19

1 . Satyanarayana Pitty, (died per LRs) petitioners 2 to 5

¶20

Sanjay Pitty, S/o. Satyanarayana Pitty, Aged about 48 years, Occ- Business, R:/o. H. No. 6-3- 1 2 1 e t 1 t 1 o. street N o. 1, rr, "nff f,f,gilEfi 3,?giiildfl =,

¶21

Smt Susheela Pitty, Wo. Late Satyanarayana Pitty, aged 70 years, Occ: Housewife, Fl/o.H.No.6-3-1219l1l1O,Street No.1, Uma Nagar, Begumpet, Hyderabad-16.

¶22

Mukesh Pitty, S/o.late Satyanarayana Pitty, aged 53 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.6-3-1219l1l1O,Street No.1, Uma Nagar, Begumpet, Hyderabad-16.

¶23

Smt Archana Go /al, Wo.Sri Anil Goyal, D/o.late Satyanara'lana Pitty, aged 49 years, Occ: Hrusewife, R/o.H.No.6-3- 12191111O, Stree: I'Jo.1, Uma Nagar, Begumpet' Hyderabad-16

¶24

....^{petitioners/ proposed petitioners}

¶25

AND

¶26

Md. Abdul Abbas Khar, S/o. Late Mohd. Abdul Sattar Khan, Agec abot.:t 42 yearc, Occ- Business, R/o.Sh;p No.15-5-65/16, Afzal Gunj, Hyderabacl

¶27

...RESPONDE \T/ RESPONDENT

¶28

lA NO: 1 OF 20'19

¶29

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the ci,'cumstances stated in the affidavit filed ir support of the petition, the High Court nray be pleased to condone the delay r,f 234 days in filing the application to l)ring on record the legal re presentative: . of the deceased petitioner No. 1 as F,etitioners 3 to 5 in CRP No. 5354 of 20 r8 and to pass

¶30

lA NO: 2 OF 2019

¶31

Petition unde^- Section 151 CPC (Uls. 22 Rule 3 of C vrl Procedure Code) praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High C )urt may be pleased to set aside the abatement by condoning the delay in filing tt e application to bring on record the Leg;;l Representatives of the deceased petiti )ner No. 1 as petitioners 3 to 5 in CRP No. 5357 of 2018

¶32

lA NO: 3 OF 201S

¶33

(Petition un,ler Section 151 Civil Procedure Code) (tJ,rs. 22 rule 3 of Civil Procedure Code) rraying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the pet lion, the High Court may be pleased to be bring on record the Legal Representa ive of the deceased Petitioner No. 1 (1) Smt. Susheela Pitty, Wio. Late Satyar arayana Pitty, aged about 70 years, C)cc: House wife, Rl/o. H.No. 6-3-1219/1 10, street No. 1, Uma Nagar, Begumpet, Hyderabad-16, (2) Mukesh Pitty, S o. Late Satyanarayana Pitty, aged a bout 53 years, Occ: Business, R/o. {.No. 6-3-121 9/'t 0, Street No. 1 , Unra Nagar, Begumpet, Hyderabad-16 arrd (3) Smt. Archana Goyal, W/o. Srl Anil Goyal, D/o. Late Satyanarayana t itty, Aged about 49 years, Occ: Hous-.wife, Rl/o. H.No. 6-312191111O, Stree No. 1, Uma Nagar Begumpet, Hyderabad-16, as Appellant No. 3 to 5, in SA No. 1391 ot 2007

¶34

For the Petitionr rs : SRI AKKAM ESHWAR, Advocate

¶35

Counsel for the Respondents : None Appeared

¶36

The Court made rhe following: ORDER

¶37

HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶38

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5357 of 2O18

¶39

ORDER:

¶40

Challenge in this Revision Petition is the order that is rendered by the Court of Chief Judge, City Sma-ll Causes Court, Hyderabad in I.A.No.519 of 2017 in RA(SR).No.3189 of 2Ol7 dated 24.4.2018.

¶41

Heard the submission of Sri A.Eshwar, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners. Despite sen/ice of notice, the respondent failed to appea-r.

¶42

The revision petitioners, aggrieved by the order that is rendered by the Court of I Additional Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad in RC.No.92 of 2015, dated 13.02.2OL7, preferced an appeal. As ttre appeal was not filed within prescribed period, they moved an interlocutory application uide I.A.No.5l9 of 2Ol7 seeking the Court to condone the delay of 2ll days in filing the said appeal. The said interlocutory application stood dismissed uide order dated^{24.4.2018 by the Courtof Chief}

¶43

¶44

:i ,l

¶45

D,.< Sl. , J CRP--'o-5J57 oJ^)0t8

¶46

Judge, CiQ Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. Aggrieved by the said c rder, the revision petitioners are before this Court

¶47

Learn:d counsel for the revision petitirtners submits that when sufficient cause is shown and the delay is not inordinate, the delay has to be condonel. But, the appellate C:urt failed to condone the delay which is most unjustifiabl : and therefore, the order under challenge has to be set as de.

¶48

A perusal of the affidavit given in su:port of the application filed for condoning the delay reveals the following re rsons:-

¶49

(l)Thr.t petitioner No.l/appellant is suffering from var ous health ailments and is bed ridden since few years.

¶50

(2lThzt petitioner No.1 is suffering fi'om chronic AIz reimers arrd is completely paralysr:d and he car not move his hands or legs.

¶51

Df,CSL, J -) ('RP.i;o.tlti of 201E

¶52

(3) That petitioner No. 1 's health condition worsened since February,2017

¶53

(a) That petitioner No.2, being the son of petitioner No.1, is attending him for all his needs including providing bat}. and food.

¶54

(5) That petitioner No.1 cannot even attend his natura-l calls and therefore, apart from the lemale members in the family, petitioner No.2 being a male member is attending petitioner No.1.

¶55

(6) That due to the above reasons, the petitioners could not contact their counsel.

¶56

Without assigning any reasons regarding the genuineness or otherwise in the above grounds urged by the petitioners and only basing on the plea taken in the counter by the respondent that a civil srrit is pending and ttrat the petitioners were not diligent in preferring the appeal within time, the appellate Court dismissed the application that is filed for condoning the delay. The appellate Court further made an observation that \he

D..('SL, J

CRP-No.5J57 oI20IE

petitionerr have not explained the reasons 1br day-to- day delay. Lavr does not expect or require to narr;rt.e each day's delay in c etail when the reason for delay zrs a whole is shown an I when the same is found to br: cogent and convincing lt is not expected on part of the Ccurts to have hyper tecl nical approach which would ullirnately defeat the ends c I justice. The reasons accorded tr1' r-he revision petitioners appears convincing and justiliab, e. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the impugned order is unsustaina ble being devoid of merits. l{en,:e, this Court considers it desirable to set aside the impugnerl order.

¶61

7 . Resul .antly, the Civil Revision Petitiorr is allou,ed without co: ts. The order that is rendered b1, ttre Court of 1n Chief Jud6e, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad I.A.No.519 of 2OL7 in RA(SR).No.3189 of 2017 dated 1n 24.4.2O18 is set aside. Consequently, the delay preferring lhe appeal is condoned. The Court of Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad is directed to number the appeal if the same is found to be cl-herwise in order.

¶62

¶63

D4.SL, r

¶64

Cfr?.No.5J'z o! 20lE

¶65

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if

¶66

any, sha-ll stand closed.

Sd/-T.SRINIV

DEPUTY REGIST

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

The Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.

¶73

tt/d. Abdul Abbas Khan, S/o.late Mohd. Abdul Sattar Khan, aged about 42 years, Occ: Business, Rl/o.Shop No.15-5-65/16, Afzal Gunj, Hyderabad. 3. One CC to Sri T.Natraj, Advocate [OPUC]

¶74

One CC to Sri Akkam Eshwar, Advocate [OPUC]

¶75

Two CD Copies

¶76

One Spare Copy

$^"

I I I

HIGH COURT DATED:O110712022

¶82

, € SIArF oA
,( <br>t
C; 11,l
j1 iirl ?UI?

¶83

ORDER

¶84

GRP.No.5357^{of 20 8}

¶85

THE CRP IS^{ALOVIED WITHOUTCOSTS.}

¶86

Satyanarayana Pitty v. md. Abdul Abbas Khan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satyanarayana Pitty v. md. Abdul Abbas Khan

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

The Special Tahsildar (Land Reforms) and Another Vs Tera Chinnapa Reddy

D Ramchander, R.R.Dist Vs M/S Narne Estate Pvt. Ltd, Secunderabad

D Ramchander, R.R.Dist Vs M/S Narne Estate Pvt. Ltd, Secbad

Abdullah Vs Mohammed

M Mahboob Shareef, Hyderabad Vs Mohd Mubasheer Ahmed, Hyderabad

T. Mohan Vs M/s.Matha Constructions