Single judge of the Telangana High Court dismissed a civil revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution. The court held that the petitioner failed to show sufficient cause for the 1757-day delay in restoring a suit dismissed due to non-payment of fees.
Civil Revision Petition No. 142 of 2020 dismissed. No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[3260 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
WEDNESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUST]CE A.SANTHOSH REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 142 OF 2020
Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia, Aggrieved by the Order dated 2310912019 in l.A.No. 478 of 2018 in O.S. No. 859 of 2012 passed by the Vl Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC) Ranga Reddy District at Malkajgiri.
Between:
Smt. Vijaya Geeta, wife of Sri K. Pratap, Aged about 63 years, Occ. Retired, Rt/o 203, Sindhuja Residency, S.V. Officers Colony, Rama Krishna Puram, Secunderabad 500 056
...REVISION PETITIONERYPLAINTIFF
AND
...RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
lA NO: 1 OF 2020
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
2
stay all further proceedings in O.S. No. 859 of 2012 passed by the Vl Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC) Ranga Reddy District at Malkajgiri pending disposal of the Revision Petition.
lA NO: 1 OF 2022
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 extend the order dt. 31 .01 .2O2O in l.A.No.1/2021 pending disposal of this Revision Petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. SUNIL B GANU
Counsel for the Respondent No.1 & 2: SRl. G KIRAN KUMAR REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent No.4 & 5: SRl. T SRUJAN KUMAR REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HONOURABLESRI JUSTICEA'SANTHOSH REDDY
C.R.P.No .142 0F2020
ORDER:
This civil revisionpetition under Article 227 ol' the Constitution ofIndia is directed againstthe orderdated 23'09'2019 in I.A.No.478 of20 l8in O.S.No'859 of 2012, on the file of the Vl-Additional District andSessionsJudge (FTC)'Ranga Reddy District, at Malkajgiri,whereinthe said application filed by the pctitioner-p laintilf under Section5 of the LimitationAct read with Section l5l CPC scckingto condone the delay of 1757 days in frling the application to restore thesuit as against respondents Nos. l, 4 and 5-def-cndant Nos. l, 4 and 5 bysetting aside the order dated I 13.03.20 I 3. was dismissed.
l
Larer, on 05.01.2013, the suit was transfen.ed 10 Malkajgiri Courr and it was called on I8.0:.1013. As none of lhe panies appeared on that date, liesh summons was ordered by the Court to defcndant Nos.l,4 and 5. The petitioner failed to deposit the process fee for issuance of fresh sutnrlons and the trial Court dismissed the suit against delendant Nos. I, 4 and 5 on 1g.03.2013 hrr. non-paymcnt of process fee. Subsequentlv. the petitioner filed an application r-rnder Order IX Rule 4 CpC [o sct asidc rhe dismissal ordcr dated 18.03.2013 along rvirir an application to condone the delay of 1757 days in filing thc perition ser aside thc dismissal order. The petitioner resisted the sanre by filing counter. After hcaring both sides and upon per.using thc record. the trial Court disrnisscd the said application holding rhat no sufficient cause of action was shorvn by the petitioner for condoning the enormous delay of I757 days in filing the application Lo set aside the dismissal order dated 18.03.20i3. Challenging the sanre, the present revision is filed.
3
l I
courl ought to haveseenthat delaycaused was not intentional but it was lor the reasonthe petitionercould not contact her counsel and that the suitwas lranslerrcdto Malkajgiri Court and that the petitioner f'ailed to keep track ofthe same' l,eamedcounsel further submits that ii thesaid application is allowed, no prejudice would bc caused to thecase olthe respondentsand as such prayed to allow the revision bysetting aside the impugned order. Learned counsel placed onreliance onthe decisionsin RAF'IQ AND ANOTHI)R v. MUNStlll.ALAND ANOTIIE,RT' NIMESH DILIPBHAI BRAHMBHATT V.HITESH JAYANTILAL PATEL2 and ROBIN THAPA v. ROHIT DORA].
1( r98l) 2 SCC 788
,i\4ANtJ(GJ/ I 2i512022
3MAN(r/SC/0886/2019
6 fhus. on hearing lcar.ned counsel Ibr both parlies, the onlv question that arises lor consider.ation is _ whether the orcler under rcvrsron rs sustainable irr lau,,l
l
days in filing the application to set aside the dismissal order dated r8.03.20r3.
I l. Coming to the case on hand, the petitioner had not shown any sulficicnt cause lbr the dclay and the grounds stared by her to treat them as sulficient cause are that she was outstation and could not contact her counsel and the other ground is that the case was transl'erred to Malkajgiri Court.-l'he said grouncls cannot be a sufficient cause to condone the enormous delay of 1757 days in filing the application to set aside the dismissal order.
l,2. Coming to the decisions relied on by learned counsel lor the petitioner in RAFIQ's case (t supra), the Hon,ble Apex Court considered the ex parte order of dismissal of the appeal caused by the Iligh Courr fbr non-appearance olthe appellant,s counsel on the date of hearing and hetd that the rejection of the plaint as not
6
iustified, as the parlies shorrld not suflf.er lor rhe inaction, deliberate ornission, or. rnisderneanour ol his agent.
13.-fhe dccision ol thc Cujarar High Courl in NIMESH DILTPBHAI BRAHMBHATT,s case (2 supra) also relates ro rhe case rvhere the application flled to set aside Lhe ex parte ordcr was dismissed. [t rvas held in thc said decision that it is trite law that a party should not suffer due ro the inaction on the paft of the advocate and that the matter should be decided on rnerits rather than orr techn ical ground.
Order further appears to reveal that the plaintiff was present in person. The plaintiff has filed his proof affidavit. It was decided to proceed against the appellant ex parte. There rs, however, a referenc to the application to engage an advocate oy tne appelanre The case stood posted for ex parte argumenr on 0g 0g present on the said o^u 'o'oAs parties were not the case was posled to
'1
I I
15.09.2014. However, on12.Q9.2014,the casestood transferred to anotherCourt. No intimation was given under Rule 89Ato the aPPellant.
The further case of the appellantis that he cameto know from theplaintiff thatthe case was fixedfor judgment on 17.11.2015. He hasallegedthat he contactedhis counsel but he did notget a satisfactory reply. He also has a case that he appeared on17 .11.2O151ncourt, and then, he only came to know thatjudgment wasrenderedon 09.10.2014, A new counsel was engagedon 26j1.2015. Thereafter, the application wasfiled.
i5. l'he above decisions categorically show that ifsufficientcause fbr excusing thc delay is shown, discretion isgiven to the Court to condone delay and the said discretion has been deliberately conl-erred on the Court in order thatj udiciat power and discretion in rhat behallshould be exercised to advance substantialjuslice.
I6. By kceping the above principles in view, coming to thecase
on hand, the grounds urged by the petitioner do not disclose any sufficient cause to condone the enormous delay of 1757 days. Apart lrom that, in the affidavit filed in support of the application toset aside the dismissal order, it is nowhere pleaded that it was due to inaction on the part of the counsel, she could not noticethat the suit rvas disrrissed against delendant Nos.l , 4 and 5 due to non-payment
jII
; t
o[' process. Adnritted]r. in the rnain suit, botlr parties adtlucetl
evidence and the nlatter is coming up lor argurnents and at this stage, u,ithout any substantial cause, if thc delay is condoncd and thc rcspondents arc added as parries, the suit, which is olthe year 2012. rvill have to be commenccd afresh after l0 years. This is not appropriate und cannot be cxcrcised to aclvance any substantial .justice.
Sd/. T. JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//
To,
SECTION OFFICER
PR kam
?
HIGH COURT
DATED:01 10312023
ORDER
41 -'_::::-j:->..- '; t: S r;r-'.<br>2 1 APR ?823
\.1
.'..
CRP.No.142 of 2020
DISMISSING THE CRP
6\b(t,
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner shown sufficient cause to condone the delay of 1757 days in filing the application to restore the suit.
Whether the trial court committed any error in dismissing the application seeking condonation of delay.
Whether the grounds of being outstation and case transfer constitute sufficient cause for condoning the delay.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. Vijaya Geeta
1. Smt. R. Lakshmi
2. Smt. V. Bhalatamma
3. V. Ramakrishna Reddy
4. R. Sudarshan
5. K. Nageshwar Rao
Sri Justice A. Santhosh Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
