Allowed

Kaneez E Abida Begum v. Anjuman E Moinul Akwan Ashfia Kingdom

Telangana HC3 Dec 2024CRP/327/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a civil revision petition condoning a 356-day delay in filing an appeal. The court held the trial court erred in dismissing the application by hearing merits. The High Court applied a liberal interpretation of sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, considering the petitioner's old age, illness, and lack of financial support.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition allowed; order of the trial court setting aside the application to condone delay is set aside.

Kaneez E Abida Begum Vs Anjuman E Moinul Akwan Ashfia Kingdom — Telangana HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

[^33E5 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶6

CIVIL REVISI ONP ETITION NO:3 27 0F 2019

¶7

Between:

¶8

KANEEZ E ABIDA BEGUtvt,rUV/o Late Siddique Hussain Aged about 6.1 years, Occ: Househotd R/o H.No.22-8-361, Ataw;;_S;,r;;; M"rb;rrK-D;ri#i;; Hyderabad.

¶9

AND

¶10

"'Petitioner

¶11

1 ANJUIVIAN E MOTNUL AKW{N Ashfia Kingdom, Rep. by its Secretary Mir Sqbir Ali, S/o Mir Ahmed Ati, Aged aOout Od yeai's, Ofti"" ,t 22_8-36.1 , Atawa_ e-Sartouq lvlubarak, Darulshifal Hyderabad.

¶12

2 Xl^11.s_q9f !r,L?in Pg[!tgl,^{S/o ZainurAbedin} @^omerBhai, ucc:trusrness, H.No.22-7_43O, lnside Dewadi BaQ--uer Nawaz jung, purani Haveli, Hyderabad

¶13

...Respondents

¶14

Petition under Articre 227 of rhe constitution of rndia, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds fired herein, the High court may be preased to this Memorandum of Grounds of civir Revision petition to this Honorabre court aggrieved by the order dated 23-01-20'1 9, passed by the learned chief Judge, city small causes court, Hyderabad in r.A.No.70z of 2014 in RA (sR) No.4543 of 2014

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 201 I

¶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 preased to direct the respondent Nos. 'r and 2 not to arienate or create any third party rights or change the nature of the suit schedule property.

¶17

,/ Counsel for the Petitioner(s):^{Sri S' Ganesh}

¶18

Counsel for the Respondents:^{Sri M. Mehdi Hussain}

¶19

The Court made the^{followingOrder:-}

¶20

¶21

THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE SUJANA

¶22

'; r:t' :.

¶23

CIVIL REV ISION PE oN NO.327^()F 2019

¶24

ORDER

¶25

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner against the order of the trial Court dated 23.01.2019 in IA.No.707 of 2014 in RA(SR) No.4543 of 2074, wherein, the petition is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 356 days in filing the appeal against the eviction orders, dated 09.10.2013 in R.C.No.366 of 2008.

¶26

. .):: .:,'

¶27

.:, .E

¶28

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is not personally attending to the Tribunal due to her old aged ailments, and her husband was attending. After the death of her husband, the petitioner and other legal heirs were not attending the Tribunal because her elder son is residing in abroad for his livelihood and younger son is not abled person. It is further alleged that she had no knowledge about the pendency of the application before the Rent Controller and without her knowledge, notice eviction orders were passed on 09.10.2013, and she came to know about the eviction orders

¶29

I U

¶30

'.... I ,.<::i.,..,:, . lta::i;-. '.i:v !,. " 'lr,e -. ...i

¶31

,:i.- ,: -i:t i-i '6:.1 +I i'-

¶32

ar.-. : -'.:: r. r., : xfox

¶33

¶34

\ ias -.5. .l:!
\ '-'r a
..i:rii.t :1.

¶35

only when the Field Assistant^{came alongwith Police Cfficials} to PSP for vacating her, and^{all of a sudden,they got vacated} her and her family members on^{15.09.2014 pursuant to the} delivery warrant issued in^E.P.No.13 of^{20t4, anCthus,} respondent No.1^played fraud upon^{her, hence, prayed to} allow the a^pplication.

¶36

After hearing both sides, the application^{was dismissed} by the trial Court stating that there is^{no explanation and} sufficient reason for abnormal delay of 356^days aM^{it cannot} be condoned in a routine and mechanical^{way and there is no} justifiable grounds in the petition to condone the abnormal delay of 356 days in^preferring the^{appeal and even,} otherwise, the^petitioner now became^{B0 years old and she} cannot engage herself personally in any business^and therefore, the trial Court dismissed the^petition.

¶37

Aggrieved by the same, the^present Civil^Revision Petition is filed stating that the impugned order of the^trial Court is contrary to the settled^principles of^{law and the trial} Court ought to have considered the^fact that^{the petitioneris} an old lady and sick which is^proved by the Doctor's^certificate

.l' _: .i

and her husband passed away. The trial Court ought to have observed that just because the petitioner goes in a wheel chair with an attendant, she is not diligent enough to pursue the case and there were cogent and valid reasons set out in the affidavit to explain the delay In filing, as such, requested the Court to set aside the order of the trial Court.

¶43

Heard both sides.

il.,: i ].1

',^:4i*.:

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the trial Court not considered the cause stated by her for condoning the delay and there are fair grounds to condone the delay not only her illness and her husband also passed away, and there is no male member to proceed with the case, as such, delay occurred and it is not necessary to explain day to day delay in each and every case. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a Judgment of the Apex Court in ,Sheo Raj Singh (Deceased) Through Legat Representatives and otheres vs. Union of India and Another,r.

'^{1zozs110 scc 531}

.ii

On the other^{hand.learned counsel for the respondents} would submit that^{there is no illegality in the order of the trial} Court and there are^{no merits in thei presentpetition as the} order is of the^{year 2013 and aFter giving ample opportunities} only, the trial Court^{decreed the suit and E'P' was ordered'} Moreover, the^{property got vacatedlong back in the year} 20t4. At the time of^{filingset asidepetition,the petitioner} was 83^years old and^{she cannot do any business in future} and not only the days^{or months,it is almostone yeardelay} in fillng the appeal and^{it cannotbe condoned in a routine} mannerr as such, there^{is no illegality in the order of the trial} Court and there are^{no merits in the petition, as such,} requested the Court to dismiss^{the petition'}

¶52

B. Having regard to the^{submissionsmade by both the} parties and on perusal of the material available^{on record,} while dealing with the^{petition under Section5 of the} Limitation Act, the Court^{has to consideronly to the extent of} cause which is explained^{by the petitioner for condoning the} delay. The reasons for^{delay are explained by the petitioner} that she is an old^{aged lady and her elder son is in abroad}

I I

; tl

I \

t I

._q .,/

¶60

seeking tivetihood and her husband passed away during the course of trial, and she is also financially not stable to gather money and to engage counsel. Further, she is also sick during the course of the period due to her old aged ailments. Whereas, the trial Court.went into the merits of the case stating that as already she became old, she cannot do any further business. The sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has to be considered liberally and in each case, they cannot explain day to day delay and is observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in^,Sheo Raj Singh, (surpra) while dealing with Section 5 of the Act, the Court has to be liberal.

¶61

"sufficient cause" employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which sub-serves the ends of justice. Therefore, be considered with pragmatism in justice_oriented approach rather than the technical detection of sufficient cause for explaining every day,s delay, where substantiat justice and a technical approach were pitted against each other, a pragmatic approach shoutd be taken with the former being preferred. An apptication for condonation to be seen in a positive light, the same should be bona fide, based on true and plausible explanations, and should reflect the normal conduct of a common prudeft person.

¶62

¶63

¶64

g. In the^{present case also the petitioneris an old aged} lady and she^{explained her inability financially and also there} is no logistic^{support for her to file An appealimmediately'} Therefore,inVieWofthehealthconditionofthepetitionerand also financial^{ability,the trial Court would have considered the} same instead of^{discussingabout the meritsof the case'} Therefore,^{the order of the trial Court is liableto be set aside'}

¶65