Revision petition challenging dismissal of an application condoning 2198 days' delay in filing an appeal against a preliminary decree in a partition suit. The High Court found the ill-health explanation unsupported by medical evidence and no reason for other appellants' inaction, and dismissed the petition.
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.
[34431
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THURSDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA
rJ c 1
Petition under Section'1 15 of Civil Procedure Code against the Order dated 03.07.2019 Passed in 1.A.No.727 of 2015 in unregistered AS No. of 2015 on the file of the Court of the lX Additional District Judge, Kamareddy.
Between
.Petitioner/Respondents
D
. Respondents/Petitioner
lA NO: 1 OF 11019
Petitiorr 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 tJismissal order passed in the condone delay petition dated 03-072a19 against i.A.No. 727 of 2015 in unregistered AS No. of 2O1S on the file of lX Additional district Judge. Kamareddy and to condone the delay of 21gg days in filing the first erppeal before the lX Additional District Judge. Kamareddy.
lA NO: 2 OF 2019
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 stay all further proceedings in passing final decree in O.S.No. 112 OF 2O02, on the file of lX Additional District Judge. Kamareddy and to condone the delay of 2198 days in filing the first appeal before the lX Additional district judge. Kamareddy.
Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI V.SARAF SUDHAKAR
Gounsel for the Respondents Nos.l ,2,4 and 5: sRl vlJAy B pARopAKARI The Court maderthe following: ORDER
I I I
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSTNG RAO NANDIKONDA CIVI REVTSION ITION No.1970 of2019
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed by rhe
petitioners/defendants assailing the order dated 03.07.2019 in I.A.No.727 of 2015 in unregistered Appeal Suit of the year, zol5 passed by the learned tX Additional District Judge, Kamareddy (hereinafter referred to as "trial Court"), wherein the learned Judge dismissed the application filed for condonation of delay of 2198 days.
2 NNR,T C.R.P.No.l970of 2019
in I.A.ltio.721 of 2015 to condone the delay of 2198 days in presentrng the appeal. The said application was heard and dismiss,:d by the learned IX Additional District Judge, Kamareddy
made in that the the petition, contending
., NNR,I CR.P.No.1970 of 2019
petitioners/appellants/defendants were aware of the fact that respondent No.3 died on 28.04.2013 and still she was madeas a party to the proceedings deliberately with a mala fide intentiron. It is further mentioned that there was inordinate delay of 2l9g days, for which, no cogent reasons were offered nor explained as to the day-to-day delay, further, to show that the petitioner/appellant No.1 was suffering heart problem, no medical report or any prescriptions were furnished. It is further mentioned that during the relevant period, the petitioner/appellant No.l was very much active and never fell sick and even some criminal cases were registered against him.
o ,.r...rrrolifi!,
be caused to respondents/plaintiffs as there are relevant
pleadings as mentioned in the plaint vis-a-vis written statement. It is further contended that the leamed Judge misunderstood the nature of the suit and dismissed the application of the revision petitiorrer without any regard and perspective to the nature of relief claimed in the suit being one for partition and separate possession and that it is obvious to file an application for passing final de,cree and the respondents/plaintiffs filed an application for passing final decree vide l.A.No.2l 5 of 2012 and the revision petitiont:rs have got no chance to avail the opportunity to file counter in the said I.A.No.2l5 of 2012. It is further contended that the trial Court passed the orders in I.A.No.2l5 of 2012 by appointirrg the Advocate Commissioner on 25.0g.2015 to partition the suit schedule property as per the preliminary decree dated 17.08.2009 in O.S.No. ll2 of 2002 and to file report. It is further contended that the notice of the above said application has been served upon the counsel for the revision petitioners but the revision petitioner/appellant No.l could not file any counter in the above application due to his health condition. The trial Court wit.lout taking into consideration of the said facts and
NNR,J C.R.P.No.I970 of 2019
5
I! I
circumstances, dismissed the application. Hence, prayed to allow
the Civil Revision Petition.
6- Heard sri v.S.sudhaker, learned counsel for the revision petitioners/defendants and Sri vijay B.Paropakari, Iearned counsel for respondent Nos. l, 2, 4 and S/plaintiff Nos. I ,2, 4 and 5. Perused the record.
ffi-"
NNR,J 6 C-R.P.No-1970 of 2019
Court perused the entirefindings given by the trial Courtat paragraph No.8, which shows that thelearned Judge has gone into the entire materialand held thatthereis no medical report to show that the petitioner/appellant No.1was from suffering ill-health,on the said ground the learnedJudgedisbelieved the contention of the petitio rer that the petitioner couldnot file the appeal as he was suffering from ill-health andthe medicalreports,which are crucial are nol been placed before the Court.Learned Judge also pointed out that Ex.Rl to R14 are filed againstthe petitioner/appellantNo.l and th.at various criminal cases wereregistered againstthe petitiorrer/appellant No.l, which is evident from theperusal ofthe above Ex,Rl to Rl4 and Ex.R7 further disclosesthat petitioner/appellant No.l acted as a Chairman for Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society Ltd., Domakondafor the period from 2ti.07 .1995 to 06.07 .2004 and also worked as Saqpanch ofthe Village Dornakonda as per Ex.RS from 23.08.2006 to 22.04.2008 and agrrin tiom 07.05.2008 to22.08.2011,who acted as public represerrtative, hence, rules out hisill-health up to22.08.2011, which is beyond the date of the Judgment andDecree dated 17.08.2009 in O.S.No.ll2 of 2002, as such the contention of the
NNR,I C.R.P.No.I970 of 2019
7
petitioner/appellant No.l was disbelieved by the trial Court and accordingly, dismissed the said application for condoning the delay of2198 days.
8
It EI :
;
,. t II :
I
NN&I C.RP.No.l970 of20l9
rightly d:smissed thepetition. This Court does not see any ground to interfere with the saidfindings and decision of the learned trial
Court.
Miscellaneous petitions,pendingifany, shall stand
closed.
A.JAYASREE ASSISTANTREGISTRAR 6
//TRUECOPY'/
SECTIONOFFICER
To,
NVB/PSL b@
HIGH GOURT
DATED i2011112025
t THE S
C)
fl 3 ,.,r,? 2n1(
Ilr D ER
CRP.No.1970 of 201 a
DISMISSINGTHE CIVIL REVISION PETITION
,Jos
,*/,,
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court rightly refused to condone a delay of 2198 days in filing the first appeal against the preliminary decree in O.S.No.112 of 2002.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Ireni Narsaiah (died per Lrs.)
Ireni Narsiah
Ireni Laxmi
Talakokkula Siddawa
Balla Anasuya
Padma
Narsing Rao Nandikonda
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
