Sulthana Begum (Died) Vs Ahmadi Begum

¶1

[³³⁸³ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE ATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERA AD

¶3

MONDAY, THE NINTH AY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND ENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESEN

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE I NARAYANA AI-ISHETTY

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION O:2570 OF 2023

¶7

Petition under Article 115 of Civil P ure Code against the Order Catecl 13-05-2023 passed in I A No. 221 of 2021 in S No.60 of 2014 on the file of the (;ouft of Senior Civil Judge at Shadnagar, Rim agar District, T.S

¶8

Between:

¶9

'l . Sulthana Begum (died),

¶10

Rahumuddin Died, (died)

¶11

li Shafia Sulthana,, Wo. Late Rafiuddin, 66 years, Occ,House hold, R,ro.H No l8-2-43131N 166, Gazimillat Colony, hnadrayanagutta, Hyderabad,TS

¶12

4 Bilkes Sulthana,, Wo. Late Khaja Q uddin, aged 65 years. Occ i-io,-; si.: hold, R/o H No'lB-'l-111/32, Ex-Service Colony, Uppuguda, Hy,"rer':rbac TS

¶13

5 Srnt. Badar Begum,, Wo. Late Shiraj in, aged 50 years,Occ Hcuse ircirl R/o. H.No.17-3-380/1 3,Yakuthpura, Sh ngunjki Devidi, Hyderabad, l'S

¶14

C Layak Sulthana. (died without LR's)

¶15

...PETI NERS/PLAINTIFFS/PET!TION E RS

¶16

.AND

¶17

1 /1.nrxadi Begum, Wo Abdul Azeez, ag€d 2 years,No.l and 2 ate Rlc i 8- i - 203/9. Uppuguda, Hyderabad,TS.

¶18

Hameeda Begum, Wo Abdul Azeez,ag . 52 years, No.1 and 2 are Rio. 181 -203/9, Uppuguda, Hyderabad,TS.

¶19

3 Bilqis Begum, Wo Abdul hag, aged. 47 ars, 1 9-3-294199741, Y2 lrei,-,alli Post. Beside Nice Hotel, Hyderabad,TS.

¶20

4 Abdu! Samad, S/o Abdul Raheem, aged 1 years, R/o.H No. 9-3-305/'1414 Vattepally, Hyderabad,TS.

¶21

5 lVl,rnawar Begum. Wo Md Jahangeer, ag . 67 years, R/o H.No.. 3- l596/311, Vattepally

¶22

5 Abdul Azmeri. Sio late Abdul Azeez, 33 years, Occ. Business R/o^18- 1-203/39. Krishna Reddy Nagar, Kandika gate, Uppuguda. Hyderahat

¶23

r!-rattr!!1rq/

¶24

Abdul Kareem @ Nawab, S/o late Abdul Azeez, aged. 3.1 years, Occ. Private Employee, R/o 18-1-203/39, Krishna Reddy Nagar, KandikaI gatem Uppuguda, Hyderabad

¶25

Abdul lsmail agora, s/o late abdul Azeez, aged- 29 years, Occ. Prirrate Employee, R/o 1B-1-203/39, Krishna Reddy Nagarm Kandijak gate, Uppuguda, Hyderabad,

¶26

Bibi, S/o late Abdul Azeez, aged .27 years, Occ. Business, R/o 1B-1-203/39, Krishna Reddy Nagar, Kandikal Gate, Uppuguda, Hyderabad. (added as per order dated. 29-11-2011, passed in IA No. of2011)

¶27

...RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS

¶28

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶29

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 order for substitute service by way of public notice in any local News paper (Telugu) in Hyderabad district regions in the above CRP No. 2570 of 2023 against the Respondents i.e. R-1 , R-2, R-4, R-6, R-7 & R-8.

¶30

Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI BETHMNKATESWARLU

¶31

Counsel for the Respondents:

¶32

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶33

HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICE LAXMINJARAYANAALISHETTY}

¶34

cIvIL REVISION^PETITION t{O.257O^{OF 2023}

¶35

ORDER:

¶36

This Civil^{Rcvision I']etitionis fi ed assailingthe order dated} 73.06.2023 in^{t.A.No.221of 2021 in O} sl No.60 of 2014 Passed^{bY the}

¶37

Senior Civil Judgc^{at Shaclnagar}

¶38

Heard Sri llcthi^{Vcnkateshwarlu,} earncd counscl^for Petitioners and Sri Shaik^{KhaiaPasha,learnedcouscl appcarir-rg [or resPondent}

¶39

Nos.2 to 5 and⁹

¶40

The petitioners^{herein are theplaintiffsand the resPondents} herein are the^{clt:fcndants bcfore thc trial Court' [;or convenience'} hereinaftcr^tht: Partic's^{art' rcfcrrcci to as} lhcy^{are arraycclin the suit'}

¶41

4 Brief facts^{rclevant for acljudicaticinof the Present Civil Revision} suit fo r partition and deliverv^oI Petition at'e that l.rlair.rtif^{fs filed} l r-('\irc('t tlI tlrt'^larltl acl i" casu rit-tg At's. 12.12 guntas^tn POSSeSSIOII la1;c anrl Acs.l^1.17 Suntas^{in Sy'No'365 of} Keshampet^{vitlage; that ot.tc' latt- Ahdul juttx:''has got two wives' i'e '} Jainabbi^{is the first tt'ift'arrtl lJur.rharr ln'[ is th('scconcl rvifc'}

¶42

[t is avcrrcd that^{plairrtiffs arc te legal heirs o[ Iate Khaja Bee,} who is the^{daughterof Iluran llec, w'[o is the secotrclrvi fe of AbcluI} Karccm; Ihat^{Abtlr-rl Ralrt't't, is tlrt' sorh of first wi[c oI lainablri;} that

¶43

)

¶44

name of the Abclul Rar-rcem was recorded in art the rcvenue records as exclusive owr.rcr. .[ suit la'ds; that during the lifc tirne of Abdul Raheem' he declared r Iiba orally i. favour of his step sister Burhan Bee and her daughter rate Khaja [3ee to gi'e harf share in the suit rands and subsequently, througlr written c{ocurnent dated 15.02.1gg5 assured and agreed to give half share in thc suit lands as per I Iiba made by the original pattadar Abdul f(ahce,r; that thc c{efenclants usetl to pay food grains to thc p[5i111;p6, whcncver de.randed by getting the suit Iands cultivate throug;h others; that on account of increasc i. rates of lands, the defendants arc proposin5,, to sc the suit lands. I{ence, the suit.

¶45

It is further averred that initiallv, the plaintiffs l,iled a suit in O.S.No.101 of 2007 on the tilc oi Ac{cll. Senior Civil Judge at Mahabubnagar for partition ol tirc. suit lanc{s; that clc,l.cndants entered appearance anc'r fircd writtcrr stdtl,lc.u trrat after irami.g of issues, trial commenced and [,.W.1 rvas exarnir_rccl in chief ancl Exs.A1 to A7 were marked ancl mattcr was acl.jourrrc,cl to 07.11.2013 ior his cross_ examinaLion and thereaftcr, trre rna tter was adjou rnecl for furtrrer evidence; that o. admi'ristrati'c 11rou.,.ls, said suit l'as transferred to the court of funior (-ivil Juc{11c at shaclrragar on 11.0{.201{ and the suit was renumbercd as O.S_ No_60 of 20 l.l.

¶46

J

¶47

It is further averrcd that during thtl pcndcncy o[ tlre suit, plaintiff No.2 died on 07.02.2075 and sincc thcre are rro rnalc persons in their

¶48

rl family, they could no[ pros€]cute the sui^{and thcrca[ter, plaintiffNo.1} also died on 09.03.2015; that during Oc^{ober,2027,tl-rrough some of} their relatives, the plaintiffs have [earut t at^{about pendency of the suit} before the courU that immediatel,,^the apploached the Court and

¶49

enquired in the section and they^w'ercinf Drmccl^{that tl're above suit was} dismissed for default on 14.09.2015^itself I t is a vcrrccl tha t plaintiffs are not aware of the above said suit^{or its d} rnissal on 14.09.2015 and nor

¶50

they were informed by the Advocate on^{rccorcland tlrat immediately,} after knowing thc dismissal o[ thc suit^fo clefault, they approached the t

¶51

Court by filing an application lirle^{[.A.No221 of 2021 for condonationof} 2237 days in fiting thc applrt.ation^{lor rc'tor;r tion ol- thc su} it.^{The trial} Court vide ordcr datccl 13.06.2023,^Lti rissr.cJ ihc sa id application {n Aggrieved thereby, the prcscnt^[lcvision ctitiorr is f ilccl t

¶52

Learned counsel for tl-re pctiLiortcrsV Pla^{ir-rti f [s contended that due} to the death of thc plaintiff Nos.l^{ar.rcl 2.r} l. c1 sincc no male persons were there in the family of the platurti[fs, thi-. r:oulc1 not approach the trial

¶53

Court and even their couttsel dicl rrot irtl'^rrn about^{disrnissalof the suit} for default and immcdiately, after knor'r' n1i thc samc',^{thcyapproached} the court by filing restoration Pe'titior-r I krrrg rv itl-r a n application for

¶54

4

¶55

condonation of rlelay by explairring the valid reasons for delay of 2237 days howevcr, thc trial (burt without consiclc,ring the same, erroneously dismissed the saicl application on thc ground that huge delay cannot be condoned simply on saying that petitioners had no knowledge ab.ut the pcnding, suit, w,hich is contrar' to w,ell settled principles of law taid down by the l{on,ble Apex Couri. and as such, the findings of the trial Court are not sustainable in the eye of law. He further submittcd that a rcnic'nt vicw rnay be taken r.r.rrire adiudicating the delay applicatiory since tl.re rights of pctitioncrs/ ptaintiffs in immovable property would be affected if the delay is .ot condoned and finally, prayed to allow thc rcvision petition.

¶56

Learned counsel for respondents/ cle fcnclan ts hatl contenclccl that petitioners lilcd the restoratio, pctitio. arong rr ith concl0.ation application with a^ ab.ormal dcla-v of 2237 clav s and that the application filccl by the petitioners is devoici ol-ap1, 11111.11 alci no proper reasons are assip,ned for condonation of huge clelav. in fiting the application ancl the triar Court has rightlv crisrnissecl I.,,,No.221 of 202r and prayed to clisr-niss the rc.vision petitiorr.

¶57

iO. With regard to the issue o[ condonation o[ dcla1,. ir is trite to refer to the judgment of the llon,blc Apex Court rn Basawaraj and

¶58

:r.+.G!fq

¶59

_)

¶60

another v. Special Land Acquisition bfficerr, wherein it is held as

¶61

under:

¶62

"l l. The expression^-sufficrcnt caus!:" should be given a liberal interpretation to ensurc rhal substan Iial^{justice is done, but only} so long as negligence, inaclion or lttrpk of bona fides cannot be inputed to the partA concented, whel[her or not sufficient carrse has been fumished, can be decided [n^{the factsof a particular} case and no straitjacket formula is possible. (Yide Madanlal v. Shyamtal I(2002) I SCC 535 : AIR 2(IOZ^{SC tOO; and Ram Nath} Soov. Gobardlan Sao [(2O02) 3 SCC I195^{:AIR2002 SC I2011.)}

¶63

It is a settled legal proposition ithat law of limitation may harshly affect a particular part_v but t has ro be applied with all its rigour when the statute so^prescri s. The court has no power to extend the pe riod of [imitation on uitable grounds. "A result flowing from a statutory provision is ever an evil. A court has no power to ignore that provision to lieve what it considers a distress resulting from its operatron." he statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the court has no choice but to enforce rt iving [ull effect to the same The legal maxim dura lex sed lex w ch means 'the law is hard but it is the law", stands atrracted n such a situation. lt has consistently been held that, "rncon enience is not" a decisive factor to be considered while interpret ng a statu te.

¶64

,oo(

¶65

The taw on the rssue can be stt marised to the effect that where a case has been presented rr) he court be)ond limitation, the applicant has to explain thc urt as to \a'hat was the "sufficient cause" which means an a cquate and enough reason which prevented him to approach th court tlithin limitation. [n case a party is found to b€ neglrgent. or lor^r!,ant of bona fide on his part in the facts and circumst:rn es oI the case, or found to have not acted diligentll'or remarned inactile there cannot be a justified ground to condone the (lcla\ No court could be justilied in condoning such an inordinate <le.la b\ rmposrng anv condition whatsoever. The application is to decided onl! within the parameters laid down b-y this Court i regard to the condonation of delay. In case there rvas no sufllcie t cause to prcvent a Iitigant to approach the court on time conclohing the dela1, rvithout any justification, putting an-' condition \ hatsoet er, amounts to passing an order in violation o[ the tatuton provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disrega d to the legislature. "

¶66

1 1 In Postmaster General and ot ers vs. Living Media India

¶67

Limited and anotherr, Hon'ble Apex C$urt having considered catena

¶68

of decisions, including Pundlik Jala Patil (deadf by LRs. Vs.

¶69

'^{zora (ra) scc ar} '^{(zorz)r scc sog}

¶70

6

¶71

Executive Engineer, Jalgaon^{MediumProjectand another3,held as}

¶72

hereunder:^-

¶73

"17...-..- The evidence on^{record suggests neglecto[ its own} right for long time in^{preferringappeals.The court cannot} enquire into belated ald^{stale claims on the ground of equity'} Delay defeats equity.^{The court helpsthose whoare vigiialt} and "do not slumber over their^rights".

¶74

L2. [n Government of ,^{Maharashtra (Water Resources} Departmentl rep. by^{Executive Engineervs'Borse Brothers} Engineers arld Contractors^{Private Limitedr,Hon'bleSupreme} Court held as under:

¶75

"63. ...... [n a ht case in^{whicha partyhas otherwiseacted born fide} and not in a negligent manner,^{a short detay beyond suchperiod} can. in the discriti,on of the^{court, be condoned,aln'a1 s bearingin} mind that the other side of the Picture^{is that the opposrtcpart\ ma)} have acquired both in equity^{andjustice,what may noN be lost b]-} the first party's inaction,^{negligenceor Laches."}

¶76

Perusal of the record^{would discl0se that the srtit $as dismissed} for default on 14.O9.2O 15,^{but the petitionersdicl not Lake steps} immediately to restore the^{suit, which clearly indicate that petitioners} rverc not diligent in^{prosecuting the suit.Admittedtl, petitioners filed} application for restoration of^{the suit along u"ith zrpplicationunder} section 5 of Limitation^{Act to condone the delay- ot 2)i\7 da1's in filing} restoration petition. Further,^{petitionersfailed to shou' cogentand} ptausible reasons for condoning^{inordinatedela5' ol 2237 da-'"'sAs} rightly observed by the trial^{Court in the impugnedordcr, the law} assists only those^{who are vigilant and not those rvho sleep over their}

¶77

'{2008) 17 SC 448

¶78

' (zozr) o scc aeo

¶79

7

¶80

rights and the Court presumes that ery party is aware of law and hence, a party cannot claim ignorance o[ la'*, as a defence to escape liability.

¶81

In view of the above discussion and legal position, this Court is ot the considered opinion that the rea]sons oflcrcd by the petitioners for condonation of inordinate delay doeg not inspire the conlidence of this Court since no plausible explana I on has been offe red for huge + inordinate delay of 2237 days in filin application and no sufficient cause has been shorvn for such delav and hence, the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶82