Dismissed

Gottee Madhu Sudhan v. Smt. G.RatnaKumari

Telangana HC21 Apr 2023CRP/993/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition seeking to quash an order refusing condonation of delay. The petitioner failed to proffer a bona fide explanation for the delay, having made conflicting statements in affidavits. The Court held no error was committed by the trial court.

What the court decided

AI extract

Gottee Madhu Sudhan Vs Smt. G.RatnaKumari — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[2s861

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P NAVEEN RAO

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 993 OF 2023

¶7

Petition under section 1 15 of CPC, againsUaggrieved by the order dated 13-32023 in l.ANO. 6004 ot 2022 in ASSR No.23064 OF 2022 in O.S.NO. 2531 of 2018 on the file of Chief Judge city civil court, Hyderabad

¶8

Between:

¶9

Gottee Madhu Sudhan, S/o. Late Gotte Mallaiah, Age.50 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o. Flat No.501, SthFloor, Hilltons MM Relegance Apartments, H.No.1^-3-1 83/4012O2, T allabasthi, Kavadiguda, Hyderabad.

¶10

...PETITIONER/APPELLANT

¶11

AND

¶12

'1. Smt. G.RatnaKumari, Wo.Late M. Sowraj, Aged.54 years, Occ. Bank Employee, Ri/o. H. No.8-2-31^'l / 1, Kummarguda, Near Passport Office, Sebbad.

¶13

M.Vinay Raj, S/o.M. Sowraj, Aged.24 years, Occ.Pvt., Service, Fi/ o. H.No.82-31111 , Kummarguda, Near Passport Office, Sec'bad.

¶14

M.Rishab Raj, S/o.Late M. Sowraj, Aged.21^years, Occ. Student, Rl/o. H.No.82-31111, Kummarguda, Near Passport Office,'Sec'bad.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶17

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 suspend the op-eration of the Order and Decree dated 13.03.2023 passed in LA. No.6004 ol 2022 in A.S.SR. No.23064 ot 2022 in O.S. No.2531 of 2018 on the file of Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad,^pending disposal of the Civil Revision Petition

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. RAPOLU BHASKAR

¶19

Counsel forthe Respondents: SRI P RAM CHANDER

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

)

¶22

THE H' )N'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO c.R.P.NO.993 0F 2023

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

Heard L:aric I counsel Sri Rapolu Bhaskar, for [1te petitioncr and leained c()ultsc []ri P. Ram Chander, for the respondcn,s.

¶25

Petitioncr her ern is respondent in O.S.No.2Sll1 of 2,.)lg in the Court ol-X Julior-^r: ivil ,Judge, City Civil Court, HyderabaC. petitioner is tenant of responr: erLts. Contending that petitioner is nc t taying the rent and no I r.a :e ting the suit premises, respond,:rnt[; filed O.S.No.2531 c,f 20 8 before the trial Court. The trial (.)ourt vide judgmenr ancl dt:cree <lated 2O.O7.2020 directed the tretitioner to vacate the spi: prer^-ri ses within two months and ftrrther clirer;ted to take steps for fili ag a separate petition under Order XX liule 12 of Civil Procedure Codr (lbr short 'C.P.CJ for mense profits.

¶26

Aggrievecl fry t.-re judgment and decree d,aLed^,.lCt .O7 .2O2O, petitioner filed ASSI .No.23064 of 2022 in the.Court of Chief .Iudge, City Civil Court, H.y le:rabad. Petitioner hled I.A.No.6OO4 o1 2(\22 in ASSR.No.23064 of 21t22 under Section 5 of Limitation Act, R,'w. Order XLI Rule 3 (A) of C.^r. O praying to condone the delay of 3,,) drrys in filing the appezLl. Ii es.pondents opposed the said applica tion. It is contended that the tetitioner has suppressed correct fac_s and has not come with clean rancls. It is contended that the.avernLetrts made in the affidavit lllerl n support of this application and the a."re.nents

¶27

-3

¶28

madc in^{the affidavitfrled in supportof E A'No 4 of 2C23are differenl} and therefore,^{petitioner is not entitled to seek condonation of delay'}

¶29

The Court^{below noticed that in E A'No 4 ol 2023' petilloner} biamed his^{earlier lawyer for not filing the appeai within thc time} prescribi:d,^{whereas,in the affrdavit hled in support of I A'No 60O4 of} 2022, he^{deposed that due to constant harassmentafld frequentvisits} of respondents^{to vacatethe flat' the wife of the petitionersuffered} from multiple^{healthissues includingdepression' Therefore'the Court} below refused^{to condonethe delay of 39 days in {iling the appeal by} observing^{that the petitioner has not corne with clean hands and his} plea to condone^{the delay is rrot bonafida}

¶30

l,earned^{counselfor the petitioner' contendsthat the delay was} not wilful^{and deliberate,that petitionerhas a fair chanceof} succeeding^{in the appealand unless the delay is condoned'grave} prejudice^{would be causedto petitioner as he has made to pay huge} amount^{of rentto which he is actually not liable'}

¶31

Per contra,^{leamedcounselfor the respondents' contends that} the petitioner^{has not come with clean hands and therefore'is not} entitled to^{any-equitableconsiderationto condone the delay of 39} days. In^{support of his contention' he has placedbefore this Court} the common^{affrdavit Iiledby the petitioner markedas Ex' Rl before} the trial Court.^{He has also placedreliance on the iudgment of the}

¶32

..t

¶33

Flon'ble SuprenLe^(-rr rrt in Balwant Singh^{(Deadf Vs. Jagdi.sh Singh} and othersl anil^cot. Lends thal if thc^party approacht:s^{the Clourt rvith} unclean hands lh:tt tsell' is a good ground to^reject rn^{appl lcal ion to} condone the de Ia1'^a rcl the Court nee d not exercise its^{<11s< ret Lonary} jurisdictior-r to con(1o 1e the delay.

¶34

In [he instant :ase, there is no dispute about^{the facr.ihalthere} is delay of only 39^cl Lys in filing the appeal^{and normallyr,u lh leiays} are condoned lrut^c; >nduct of the party is also a^{crucial zrspoctfor} consideration. In P,r Lrirgraph No.4 of the afhdavit^{filed in s upJrort of} the I.A., llled^rrncler S;ectior-r 5 of the Limitation^{Act, 196i1'for short} Act, 1963J to^cc,n( o^-re the delay,^petitioner has^{state Ithzlt the} respondents used^tc visit the said suit schedule propert)' regplarly and used to he rass lh e appellant to vacate the flat.^{By listening to} respondent No. 1^rv<r 'ds, appellant wife got depressed anc l:rad some health issues as^n.el a s due to the sard reason,^{he u'astura ble to hle} the appeal wi thin rhe limitation. As against^{ttris er'"e:'ment in} ht: common affidavit in^{E.A.No 4 of 2)23, itrs} paragraPh No.lJ o[¹ stated that after Pas sirrg the^judgment and decree^{bv the tr:al} 'Jourt, the counsel on^rec. rc informed him that he^{has a stronf] cilse to} succeed in aPPeal^b r challenging the^{judgment and decr're 1'aking} the said advice,^he 'erluested his counsel to prefer the a lpeal The counsel assurel^to >r:fer the appeal^{and informedthe pel-itioner to}

¶35

I 1zo^{rol s sccoes}

¶36

¶37

sign the^papers at^{appropriate time However, in the meanu'hile'ou} cnquiry, he came^{to know that his thencounseldid not take stepsto} prefer the appeat within^{the time and therefore, he was constrainedto} appoint another^{counsel to prefer appeal, who in turn'on his request'} filed the appeal^{on 13.1O.2022.}

¶38

It is thus seen^{that conflicting averments are madeon the same} issue to condone^{delay of 39 days ln one affidavit'the petitioner was} blaming the lawyer^{for not hling the appeal in time and in anothcr} afhdavit, he^{was blaming the respondent for not preferringthe appeal} within time. In^{support of his contentionthat respondentswere} harassing them^{and that his wifebecame sick on that ground'no} evidence is filed.

¶39

In the decision^{relied upon by the learned counselfor the} petitioner, the Honb'le^{Supreme Court held as under:}

¶40

"9. It is^{clear froma bare readingof the aboveparagraphthatt}le} applicants^{were totally callous aboutpursuing their appeal' They} trau" act"a irresponsibly^{and even with neEligence' Besidesthis'} they have not^{approached the Court with cleanhands The} appticant, who^{seeks aid of the Court for exercisingits} discretionary^{power for condoningthe delay, is expectedto state} correct facts^{andnot state lies before theCourtApproachingthe} Court^{with unclean hands itself is a groundfor rejectionof such} application.

¶41

lO. In Para^{2 of IA No' 1 of 2010,it has beenshown thatall the} legal representatives^{of the deceased are resid€ntsol 9O5o/5'} Naya Bas,^{Ambala City, (Haryarla)alrd thatthere are no other} leg"l h"i.s of^{the deceased.However, in Para 4 of tA No' 2 of} ZOfO, it na"^{beenstated that the LRs of the deceased were in} service and^{were not awareof the pendency oI theappeal'} implying that^{theywereliving at differentplacesand theletterof} the i.*y".^{was receivedat their residentialaddress of Ambala} tne stana taken^{in oneapplication contradicts the stand takenin}

¶42

-6

¶43

) )

¶44

:ij. cr applrc.lriorl I.'utthcrrr()re, it rs stated th Lt the..' .(c e n,)L r'i,:,' )[ rh( pcndenr'., ,ri tnc :rppc:rl. This again ,1oes r.o: iLppetLr o i)r r )r'ccL rnarsrnuch as ()nc (rf thc le,lal represrnLlttiv.s )Itl_e ,]r-::.r.'d namcLr., Ijar lndcr Srngh (,as cxamrr ed in :h: tn,rl '1,!r' , s .\'4. \ito r:i llrc solr ()[ l]tc dcc(ased-

¶45

I1. l. r^(liflculL lbr illc C()urt ro l)elicve that thc )crson .\ho h:s be,:'r r ia nirrcd as a !'lLncss dld not cv(n take s eps to finl ort lh. i)r )c(ed:ngs pcn.Jing bckrrc thc highest coLrL of Llle lan(1. ll!.n re lelrer, allcgc(l to Ilavc bccn wlitten by t.lc cours€, has rl^(ri l(l n^placed on r(cord :t1)(l thc application ex lacie lacks. bona iid. l' ere is no cxplan.r,ion orr rccord as to u.hy the api)li atio-l L liied immed)atcl,v rn M:rrch 2010, as th(y hacL^jornc t, ra, the appcal was Lo be listcd for hearing n the,ronth (,I \4a1 Lid srill, lrll l5 4 2010, no steps were laken tl ii ] th: rPp lrc, :io n.

¶46

Th e ,:umulative effect of the above conduct of tlle legal repres nt.atives of the sole deceased, thc appellant, clearl'r shows that thcy have actcd with callousness, irresponsibl./ and hi ve not even stated true facts in the application for co ndo I ation of delay. The approach alrd conduct oI thr: applicr nts certainly would invite criticism. Moreover il will be diff cult for the Court to exercise its discretionar; powe: in fav( ut of the applicants. There is not eveD a whiipr)r irr the en ite application as to why, right from the death o t th(, deceas :d ia Novembet 2OO7, the appellant did not take anl' steps o hatsoever tlll l5-4-2OfO to lnform their counsel about: the d ,alh of the deceased and to brlng the tegal rePres( ntatives on record".

¶47

(emphr,Lsis supplied)'

¶48

1O. In the inr tzrnt case, apparently, petitioner ha:i rlade two conflicring statcn e-rts with reference to the reason lor rrot f,referring the appeal in tim : rrnd both the reasons do not allpear tr, be genuine. Therefcrre, t he p :titioner was not prosecuting the it gation in a bonaJide ma r1ner.

¶49

In regarci o lhe facts of this case, the trial^()ourt was not inclined to exerci ie its discretion to condone the tlelal- arrd rlismissed the applicat Lon. In the facts of this case, I do not. sr:e {rny crror

¶50

¶51

¶52

committed by^{the triat Court in refusing to exercise its discrettort}

¶53

warranting^{interference of this Court'}

¶54

Accordingly,^{the Civil Revision Petitionis dismissed' No costs'}

¶55

Miscelianeous^{petitions,pendingif any' shall standclosed'}

¶56

SD/.MOHD.^{SANAULLAH ANSARI} ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

c1p

SECTION^OFFICER

To, I . The Chief^{Judge city civilcourt,Hyderabad} 2 d;6i t" sir. ndpolu^{BHASKAR Advocate-[oPUC]} 3. 6;; 66 i6^{sni. p nnvcHANDER Advocate[oPUC]} 4. Two CD^CoPies KKS $",.

, I

HIGH COUR T

DATED:2110,112023

.'1. - -':_ ," -=--- t.i. -'-...
./t .- r' t.<br>I
I 'l lr illl ZtfE
\

¶66

ORDER

¶67

CRP.No.993 o12023

¶68

DISMISSING OF THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS

¶69

f I

Gottee Madhu Sudhan v. Smt. G.RatnaKumari

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Gottee Madhu Sudhan v. Smt. G.RatnaKumari

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s Surabhi Shelters Pvt. Ltd., Vs Smt. Deepa Lalchandani

D. Madhavi Devi Vs S.K.Srinivasa Raju

Sri Shaik Nawaz Vs Mohd Aleem

Shaik Abdul Sattar Vs Mrs. Naseeb Khatoon

Pashikanti Rajendra Venkat, Vs NimmaMalla Reddy

Sri.Satyanarayana Challa ,Satish Challa Vs Smt.Sumana Sai Desai