A Civil Revision Petition filed by the plaintiffs sought to challenge the dismissal of their application for enlargement of time to file suit. The lower court dismissed the plea due to a six-year delay, finding the explanation of misplaced plaint unreasonable. The High Court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the lower court's decision.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
MONDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
clvll REVISION PETITION NO: 4596 OF 2018
Petition Under Article 227 of Constitution of lndia aggrieved by the order dated 12-03-2018 in LA (CFR No. 2812 of 2018 ) in O.S.No. 70 of 2007 on the file of the court of the Junior Civil Judge at Narsapur Medak District.
Between:
...PETITIONERS/ Plaintiffs
ANO
Palia Mahender Reddy, S/.o.Sai Reddy, Aged 39 years, Occ Business, Fl/o.Plot No.15, Radhaswamy Railway Colony, Near Kotha Markeet, Bowenpally, Secunderabad.
...RESPONDENTS/ Defendant
Counset for the Petitioner: SRl. R. RAMA BRAHMMA
Counsel for the Respondent : NONE APPEARED
The Court made the following: OROER
HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI
CML REVISION PETITION illo.4596 of 2018
ORDER:
This rcvision is liled by tire plaintiff's assailing Lhe ordcr riatccl 12.03.2018 passcrJ by l.he..lunior Civil Judge at Narsapur in unnumbcred I.A. (CF'R No. 2812 or'20 l8) in O.S. No. 70 of ')-OO7 . f i1. I he imougned order, the application filed bv thc plnirrtiffs under St'ction 148 rcacl rvith Section I 5 I CPC ro ( rrl.irqc llrc tirnc lo prescnt thc i:rlaint in O.S No-'/(-l <tl 2CtO] bclore thc Clourt u,as dismissed.
'). Thc lacts o1 [Lre case at'e tltztr, or ginally lhc plainr in O.S. rlc,. 7U of 20()7, prescntccJ bl thr: r'cv,:,1()ri I)cuu()ltcrs seekinq dtcLzrration of title and injunction, rvas returncd by the lezrr-ncd Scnirrr Civil Judgc aL Medak on 23.12.201I orr th(; poinl of Jrct'Lrniar-,;jrrrisdicr.lorrwith a dir-ccLrorr to r.ll(. rr.r isiun p(.titionct5 ro prcsenL thc same before the appropriatc oourt. Ir rs only on O/.O2.2oltt, the revision petitioners m,)vcd th(. leerrned Jtrnior Oivil Jrldgc at Narsapur bv way ol impugned unnurnbercd a1r;rlrcat ioir ((lF'R No. 2812 ctl 2O 1 ii) scekirrg pcrmissiorr to eniarqc tlic iimc ro present the plaint l;efort: r.he Court statirrg that r.vhcn tl.rc learncd Scnior (]ivil Judgc rcturnccl thc plarnt orr lil. i .l.20 l I . thc pJi;urt u,as hanrlcd )vcl t(\ thcrn bv ilrt'ir
2
counsel, but the samc was misplaced in thcir house , as such, they could not present the same before the Court till date i.e., February, 2018. Taking into consideration the fact that there was delay of more than six years in presen ting the application seeking enlargement of time and having not satisfied with the explanation offered by the revision petitioners, thc learned Junior Civil Judge, Nalsapur, dismissed the application by invoking the doctrinc 'Vigilantibus Nort Dormientitrus Jura Subueniunf (The law aids the vigilant, not thosc who sleep on their rights). Aggrieved thereby, the preser:r rcvision petition is prcferred by the plaintiffs.
l
t
abundant cauLion and in l.hesc circumstances, thc Courtbelow ought to have allowed the application.
4
mentioned in sub-rule (2) of Rule I0 of Order VII C.p.C, Even the other contention o[ the learncd counsel for the petitioners that the Court which returned the plaint, ought to have transferred the plaint to the jurisdictional Court on administrative grounds, does not hold water. In thesc circumstances, this Court is of the view that the Court below has rightly dismissed the impugned application which i.arrants no interference by this Court.
Pending Miscellaneous Petil-ions, iI an-r', shall stand
closcd.
Sd/. B. CHANORA PRAKASH ASSISTANT REGI9fRAR //TRUE COPY// ,: / sEcfloN brrtcen
To 1. The Junior Civit Judge, at Narsapur ,Medak District. 2. One CC to SRl.R RAMA BRAHMMA Advocate [OPUCI 3. Two CO Copies
kul
NJB Yr
I ,
HIGH COURT
DATED:04/09/2023
ORDER
CRP.No.4596 of 2018
{ llE ST4 /d'
/ t o
r
,? ri
i,l 31 0ci 2{23
.,i'
i- *..2 ),
/.,.
',,.
DISMISSTNG THE CRP
WITHOUT COSTS
SCYK4 w- 1*h du
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere on a Civil Revision Petition where the lower court dismissed an application for enlargement of time due to a six-year delay not satisfactorily explained by the
Whether the petitioner's claim of misplaced plaint due to the return of the suit on jurisdiction grounds constitutes a reasonable ground for such an abnormal delay.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
M.R. Mjay Kumar and others
Palia Mahender Reddy
M.G. Priyadarsini
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
