Dr G Suchira Vs Maheswari Chits Funds Mancheriyal — Telangana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Dr G Suchira Vs Maheswari Chits Funds Mancheriyal — Telangana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; I.A.No.1 of 2018 dismissed and, in consequence, appeal A.S.No.657 of 2018 stands dismissed, with no costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of (664) days in preferring the first appeal A.S.No.657 of 2018 should be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Court's answer

Though a condonation petitioner is not expected to explain the delay day to day, it is incumbent to give a plausible and reasonable explanation covering the period of the delay (stated as a settled position).

Ratio / Principle

The appellant's plea that she was informed of the suit proceedings and their dismissal only after attaining majority cannot be accepted: the suit's cause title showed her aged 23, and the record shows she came on record on 09.11.2006 during the suit's pendency and conducted it until the judgment dated 20.01.2016.

Key takeaways

The trauma explanation is unsupported by specifics: neither the date of the petitioner's father's demise nor how long she was in trauma/depression is stated in the affidavit.ratio¶30
The reasons offered by the petitioner fall short of explaining the delay of 664 days; the condonation petition therefore fails on merits and is liable to be dismissed.ratio¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Common order of the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (Justice N. Tukaramji), dated 06.02.2025, dismissing I.A.No.1 of 2018 — a Section 5 Limitation Act petition to condone a delay of (664) days in preferring first appeal A.S.No.657 of 2018 — and, in consequence, the appeal itself, without costs. The appeal, filed under Section 96 of C.P.C. by Dr. G. Suchira, challenged the judgment dated 20.01.2016 (Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mancherial) dismissing her suit O.S.No.240 of 2009 (Old O.S.No.72 of 2005), in which she sought recovery of Rs.5,90,000/- with interest from respondent Maheswari Chits Funds Mancheriyal over a chit subscribed in her minority whose prize amount was allegedly paid to a third party even after she attained majority. Held: (i) a condonation petitioner, though not bound to account day to day, must give a plausible and reasonable explanation covering the whole delay period; (ii) the appellant's plea that she learnt of the suit and its dismissal only on attaining majority was untenable — the suit's cause title showed her aged 23 and the record showed she came on record on 09.11.2006 (I.A.No.135 of 2006) and conducted the suit till the judgment dated 20.01.2016; (iii) the alternative plea of trauma following her father's death specified neither the date of demise nor its duration. The reasons offered thus fell short of explaining the 664-day delay and the petition failed on merits.

[32171

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

|.A.NO.1 0F 2018

1N/AND

APPEAL SUIT NO: 657 OF 2018

Appeal filed under Section 96 of C.P.C. against the Judgment dated 20.01.2016 passed in O.S.No.240 of 2009(Old O.S.No.72 of 2005) on the file of the court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge at Mancherial.

Between:

Dr. G. Suchira, D/o. Chandra Rao, Aged 29 Yrs, Occ Doctor, Presently residing at Q.No. E2l3, Railway Officers Colony, South Lallaguda, Secunderabad.

...APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF

AND

lVlaheswari Chits Funds Mancheriyal, (Rep. through its Foreman, M. Baleshwara Rao, R/ o. Ground floor, R.P. Road Mancheriyal)

...RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT

IA NO: 1 OF 2018

Petition under Section 5 of Limitation Act praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of (664) days in preferring the present First Appeal.

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI JAKKULA SRIDHAR

Counsel for the Respondent: ---

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

'1(:ar]

I

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAIVIJI

I.A.No.1 of 2O18 IN/AND A.S.No.657 of 2O18

COMMON ORDER:

This petition is frled by the petitic,ner/plrintiff seeking to condone the delay of 664 days^',n prefr:rring the first appea[

Learned counsel for the petitioner w,rulcl srrbmit that the petitioner as plaintiff had frled a suit for reccvery of monel, of Rs.5,9O,OOO/- with interest at 1i3ozr per annum liorr the respondent/defendantT'chit lunds company, I{e pleads that the plaintiff durinp her minority subscribed chit with the defendant but the prize amount said t,: have paid by the respondent/det:er':dalt to some thirrl party even after she attain,:d rr':Laj,trity, which is ex-facie illegal. Thus claiming entil.lement frled the suit for rer:tvery.

In regar,l to delay, learned counsel woulcl sr-r.bmit that the petiti rner/plaintiff was minor during rel:vant time and aft:r attainment of maj ority artd czrrr e to knowledge abcut the chit proceedings and the s;u:t for

2

recovery of money frled by her father on her behalf for t}le pize amount. In addition pleaded that, after the judgment in the suit, as the petitioner's father passed away, she was in trauma and could not take immediate steps to hle related appeal against the dismissal of the suit. However, as the petitioner got good case to contest in the appeal, as such prayed for allowing the petition. 4. I have perused the materials on record. 5. As per the cause title of the judgment, the petitioner/appellant is shown aged 23 years ald a perusal of record is indicating that during the pendency of the suit uidel.A.No.135 of 2006 dated O9.11.2006, the petitioner/appellant came on record and conducted the suit till the date of judgment i.e.,20.OL.2016. Thus, the claim that after attaining majority; the petitioner was informed about the suit proceedings and its dismissal cannot be accepted. The other explanation offered is death of petitioner's father. However, for the reasons best known to the petitioner, the date of dernise and what went wrong and how long, she was. in trauma/depression not even specified in the affidavit. \

\

{

3

It is settled position that though thr: petiti,rner is seeking cond.onation of delay, though not expe<:ted to explain the clay to day delay, it is incumbenl. to give a plausible anc reasonable explanation covering the period of the dela-y. That being the position and as the rr:asons offered by th: petitioner are falling short 1o ex;:k,in the delay of 664 days, this petition is falling on merits and accordingly is, liable to be dismissed.

In the result, I.A.No.1 of 2O18 is dismis,;ed in

consequence appeal stands dismissed. No <:osts

As a r;equel, miscellaneous petiti,tns, i1 aly,

pending in this civil revision petition shall stand cLrsed.

Sd/ K. SAILESHI qEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII A

To,

'1. The Principal Senior Civil Judge at Mancherial.

One CC to Sri Jakkula Sridhar, Advocate tOpUCI

Two CD Copies

j^''SECttOtt OFFICER

Plp/gh A

-rrtl

II

HIGH COURT

DATED:0610212025

JUDGMENT

I.A.NO.1 0F 2018 IN/AND AS.No.657 ot 120'18

../-..
.4 Ji-i<br>,t i?; ,;'/ <br>t.l
s :
I
i'-
(/1\F t-
.f,
1, r r,.
.,,

DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND THE I.A. WITHOUT COSTS.

& {