Allowed

Mahaboob Bee v. Paluri Shyamsunder

Telangana HC23 Mar 2023CRP/1789/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the Civil Revision Petition, setting aside an order dismissing an application to condone a 47-day limitation delay. The court held that the lower court erred by not recognizing that the delay period fell under the Supreme Court's excluded period due to the pandemic.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 27.09.2021 passed in I.A.No.469 of 2021 in A.S.No.230 of 2019 is set aside; the underlying I.A. and the delay condonation petition are allowed.

Mahaboob Bee Vs Paluri Shyamsunder — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32s8 ]

¶2

i I

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU

¶7

CIVIL REVISION PETITION N O: 1789 OF 2021

¶8

Petition under section 1 15 of CPC aggrieved order dated 27 -9-2021 passed in 1.A.No.469 of 2021 in A.S.No.230 of 2019 by the Principal District Judge, Waranga[.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Mahaboob Bee, W/o late Yousuf, Aged 70 years, Occ.Housewife

¶11

Md. Siraj Ahmed, S/o late Yousuf, aged 45 years, Occ. Pvt. Employee

¶12

Md. Ishaq Ahmed, S/o late Yousuf, aged 29 years, Occ.Pvt. Employee

¶13

Mumtaz, Wo Nazeeruddin D/o late Yousuf, Aged 47 years, Occ.Housewife

¶14

Shahnaaz, W/o Siddiqui D/o late Yousuf, Aged 43 years, Occ.Housewife

¶15

Naseen Banu, W/o Syed Seerajuddil D/o late Yousuf, aged 41 years, Occ. Housewife.

¶16

Parveen Banu, W/o Mohd Habeehuddin D/o late Yousuf, aged about 39 years, Occ. Housewife

¶17

Fathimunnissa Begum, W/o Syed Siddiqui Hussain, D/o late Yousuf, aged 37 years, Occ.Housewife

¶18

Sajeeda Banu, D/o late Yousuf, Aged 25 years, Occ. Nil

¶19

All are Rl/o Vishnupuri, Kazipet,Warangal

¶20

...PETITIONERS

¶21

AND

¶22

'l . Paluri Shyamsunder, (Died)S/o late David

¶23

Paluri Prabahavathi, Wo Anil Kumar, Aged 40 years, Occ.Household, Fl/o H.No.25-4-480, Vishnupuri, Kazipet,Warangal.

¶24

Paluri Phaneer Kumar, S/o Anil Kumar, Aged 8 years, Occ.Student, being miner rep. by The natural mother/guardian Paluri Prabhavathi Ryo H.No. 25-4480, Vishnupuri, Kazipet, Warangal.

¶25

P. Estar Rani, W/o late Bhaskar, aged 30 years, Occ.Household R/o25-4-480, Vishnupuri, Kazipet, Warangal.

¶26

¶27

P. Sukumar, S/o late Bhakar, aged 30 years, Occ.Household R/o25-4-482, Vrshnupuri, Kazipet, Warangal.

¶28

P. Prameela, W/o Venkatesh,aged 34 years, Occ.Household 25-4-482, Vishnupuri, Kazipet, Warangal.

¶29

P. Vimala, W/o late Divakar, aged 35 years, Occ.Household R/o25-4-480, Vishnupuri, Kazipe!, Warangal.

¶30

B. P. Vicky, S/o late Divakar, aged^'10 years, Occ.Student, being minor rep. by his natural lVother/g uard ia n P. Vimala No 25-4-482, Vishnupuri, Kazipet, Warangal.

¶31

P. Snehalatha, W/o Madhu, aged 38^years, Occ.Hdousehold No25-4-482, Vishnupuri, Kazipet, Warangal.

¶32

Paluri Josephine George, W/o late Sangeetha Rao, aged 61 years, Occ. Retd. Railway Teacher N o25-4-482, Vishnupuri, Kazipet,Warangai.

¶33

Paluri Venkata Rao, S/o PaluriSangeetha Rao, aged 31 years,Occ.Business Rl/o 25-4-480, Vishnupuri, Kazipet,Warangal.

¶34

12.P. Kalpana, W/o Philips Patric Dio late Sangeetha Rao, aged 30^years, Occ.Private Teacher R/o Secunderabad.

¶35

P. Kavitha, W/o W.K. Sai Krishna D/o late Palluri Sangeethas Rao, aged 29 years, Occ.House.vife R/o Secunderabad.

¶36

'14. Paluri Sunitha, W/o late Christopher, Aged 55 years, Occ.Household R:/o H.No.25-4-480, Vishnupuri, Kazipet, Warangal.

¶37

Paluri Bindu, D/o late Christopher, Aged 31 years, Occ.Household Rl/o25-4480, Vishnupuri, Kazipet, Warangal

¶38

'16. Paluri Prem Kumar, S/o late Christopher, Aged 30 years, Occ.Pvt. Employee, N o25-4-480, Vishnupuri, Kazipet,Warangal.

¶39

17 .Paluri Sravan Kumar, S/o late Christopher, Aged 27^years, Occ.Pvt. Employee No 25-4-480, Vishnupuri, Kazipet, Warangal.

¶40

...RESPONDENTS

¶41

Paluri Lalitha, W/o late Shyamsunder Aged 55^years, Occ d Housewife

¶42

Paluri venay Kumar, S/o late Shyamsunder, Aged 34^years Occ. Private Employee

¶43

Paluri Deepthi, D/o late Shyamsunder, Aged 3'1^years, Occ. Houswife.

¶44

21 .Paluri Nikhil Kumar, S/o late Shyamsunder, Aged about 28^years, Occ. Employee All are Rl/o H No.25-4-480, Vishnupuri, Warangal

¶45

All are Rt/o H.No.25-4-480, Vishnupuri, Warangal

¶46

...PROPOSED RESPONDENTS

¶47

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶48

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 pass an order of interim stay all of proceedings in A.S.NO.23912019 pending on the file of the Principal District Judge, Warangal, pending disposal of the above CRP and pass

¶49

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRl. S GANESH RAO

¶50

Counsel for the Respondents:

¶51

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶52

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU

¶53

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1789 OF 2O2I

¶54

ORDER:

¶55

This Civil Revision Petition has been hled by the petitioners/appellants being aggrieved by the Order dated 27.09.2021 passed in I.A.No.469 of 2O2L in A.S.No.230 of 2019 by learned Principal District Judge, Warangal, wherclrnder an application filed by the petitioners under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking to condone the delay of 47 days i.e., lrom 27.12.2O2O to 13.O2.2O2 1 was dismissed

¶56

Learned counsel for the petitioners having filed a photocopy of Order 23.O9.2O2\ passed ln Miscellaneous Application No.665 of 2O2l in SMW(C) No.3 of 2O2O by Hon'ble Apex Court and claimed that due to Covid-19, the limitation from 15.03.2020 till r4.o3.2021 {,'as excluded. The Court below without

:{ .

considering this aspect^{hasdismissedtheir} application.

¶62

As could be seen^{from theOrder,learned} Principal District Judge,^{Warangal, without} considering the fact that^{the delay period fall under the} limitation period excluded by^{the Honble Apex Court,} dismissed the delay condone^{petition observing that} the petitioners could not explain^{any reasonablecause} in their failure to file application^withintime.

¶63

By relying the Order of^{the HonbleSupreme} Court referred to supra, this Court^{is of the considered} view that the Court below erred in dismissing^{the delay} condone petition filed by the^{petitionersas such the} Order impugned in this Civil Revision Petition^{is not} sustainable under law and liable to be^{set aside.}

¶64

Under the circumstances narrated hereinbefore, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed, setting^{aside the} Order dated 27.O9.2021 passed in I.A.No.469^{of 2O2L} in A.S.No.23O of 2Ol9 by learned Principal^District

¶65

.Iudge, Warangal. As a consequence thereof, I.A.No.469

¶66

of 2021 in A.S.No.230 ol'2019 is allowed.

¶67

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any,^shall

¶68

stand closed. No costs

¶69

//TRUE COPY//

¶70

Sd/- T. JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

L.U

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Principal^{District Judge, Warangal}

¶75

One CC to^{SRl.S GANESH RAO Advocate[OPUC]}

¶76

Two CD CoPies

I ; :

HIGH COURT

SSRN, J

DATED: 2410312023

ORDER

i0: l\j l ",\11
t 1
,,

CRP.No.1789 of 2021

ALLOWING THE CIVIL

REVISION PETTTION

Gr*'
qb

Mahaboob Bee v. Paluri Shyamsunder

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahaboob Bee v. Paluri Shyamsunder

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Y.Babu Guru Vs Y.Jagannadham and 2 others

M/s. Addsun Health Care Vs Bion Therapeutics India Private Limited

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd Vs Pilli Yellamma

B.Ramesh Vs a. Mallesham

N.Sanjeeva Reddy, Vs a.Rajanarsu

Samala Srinivas Vs Bellam Subba Rao