Sandi Bhagyamma Vs Mitta Bharatamma

¶1

[³³⁰² ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRr JUSTTCE K. $ARATH

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3904 OF 2025

¶7

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia aggrieved by the order and decree passed in l.A.No.57 in O.S.No.67 of 2017, dated^2210412025, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, at Bhuvanagiri.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Bandi Bhagyamma, Wo.Kumara Swamy, aged about 50 years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o.H.No.4-61, Mailargudem, H/o.Saidapur Village, Yadagirigutta Mandal, Yadadri Bhongir District.

¶10

... PETITIONER/PLAI NTIFF

¶11

AND

¶12

Mitta Bharatamma, Wo. M.Satyanatayana, aged about 55^years, occ:Household, R/o.H.No.12-68, Yadagiripally Village, Yadagirigutta^Mandal, Yadadri Bhongir District.

¶13

'Mitta Satyanarayana, S/o. Swamy, aged about 63 years,

¶14

occ:Agriculture, R/o.H.No.12-68, Yadagiripally Village, Yadagirigutta Mandal, Yadadri Bhongir District

¶15

...RESPONDENTS'DEFEN DANTS

¶16

l.A. No. 1 oF 2025

¶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 Order and decree in l.A.No.S7 of 2024 in^{O.S.No.67 of 2017,} dated 22.04.2025, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil^{Judge, at Bhuvanagiri,} pending disposal of the Revision and pass.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner(s):^{Sri. Ch Janardhan Reddy}

¶19

Counsel for the ResPondents:

¶20

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶21

,n

¶22

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶23

T]TIE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE K.SARATH

¶24

C.R.P.No.39O4 of 2o25

Date: 07.OL.2O26

Between

Bandi Bhe.gramma.

Petitioner

And

Mitta Bharatamma and another.

¶31

..Respondents

¶32

ORDER:

¶33

He;rrd Sri Ch. Janardhan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitir>ner and perused the record.

¶34

In spite of service of notice, none appeared for the respondents.

¶35

'[his civil Revision Petition is filed against the order passed in I.A.No.S7 of 2024 in o.s.No.67 of 2olz on the file of Principal senior civil Judge, Bhuvanagiri dated 22t,.O4.2O25.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitionr:r filed suit in o.s.No.67 of 2017 on the file of the

¶37

2

¶38

i \ I

¶39

SK, J C.R.P.No.3904 of 2025

¶40

.l

¶41

senior civil Judge at Bhuvanagiri, for specific performa.nce of contract against the respondents herein and when the suit was posted for plaintiff's evidence, the petitioner was absent due to serious ill health and admitted in hospital in the second week of April, 2023 and thereafter, the suit was dismissed for default for non-prosecution on La.o4.2o23. The petitioner fited petition for restoration of the suit along with I.A.No.57 0f 2024 in O.S.No.67 0f 2017 to condone the delay of 165 days in filing restoration petition and the same was dismissed. He submits that the trial Court erred in dismissing the said application without giving any opportunity to mark any document and even^{though the} respondents have not filed counter^{opposing the said} application.

¶42

Learned Counsel^{for the petitionerfrrrthersubmits} that the trial^{court without giving opportunity to the} petitioner/plaintiff^{for adducingoral and documentary} evid.ence in^{support of her case for allowing the delay} condonation^{petition infiling restoration petitionhas} erroneouslydismissedtheapplicationandreqrrestedto

\ -r

3

(1

SK, J C.R.P.No.3904 of 2025

¶47

allow the^(livil Revision Petition by setting aside the order passed by the trial Court and to allow condone delay petition to file the restoration petition by the petitioner.

¶48

Lr:arned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following Judgment;

¶49

Ram.gulam Alias Sadhu Patel vs. Bhagwat Prasad Patelr

¶50

,\fter hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perrrsal of the record, this court is of the considered view tha.t the petitioner is plaintiff in o.s.No.6z of 2oLZ on the lile of senior civil Judge at Bhuvanagiri filed for spe'cific performance of contract for registration of sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property basing on the €r-gr€efrr3ot of sale dated 31.01.201s. The said suit was dismiss;ed for default at the stage of plaintiffs evidence on r8.o4.2ro23 and thereafter, the petitioner filed petition for restoration of the suit by setting aside the said order along with pr:tition to condone the deray of 165 days in firing the lestoration^{petition in} I.A.No.S7 0f 2024 in o.s.No.67 0f

¶51

L lzozo'11e scc s1o

¶52

4

¶53

SK, J C.R.P.No.3904 of 2025

¶54

r1

¶55

2017 and the same was dismissed by the trial court on the ground that there are no merits in the petition as the explanation for the delay is not convincing and lacks sufficient grounds for condonation of delay and the said order is impugned in the instant civil Revision petition.

¶56

In the instant case, there is no dispute with regard to the suit filed by the petitioner and the same was dismissed for default on the ground of non-prosecution on 18.04.2023. The petitioner contended that in view of her ill health, she was unable to contact with her counsel in time and due to non filing of restoration petition within the prescribed period, she filed I.A.No.57 of 2024 in O.S.No.6T of 2017 for condonation of delay of 165 days in liling restoration petition. The trial Court taking into account of the earlier docket proceedings and non liling of supporting medical certificate for the reasons mentioned in the petition has dismissed the condone delay petition. In spite of senrice of notice, none appe€rrs for the respondents before the trail Court as well as before this Court.

¶57

5

¶58

SK, J C.R.P.No.39O4 of 2025

¶59

,1'\

¶60

Ttris Court and also the Honble Supreme Court

¶61

time and again held that in condone delay petitions, the

¶62

Court hasi to take liberal view as far as possible to do substantial^justice being paramount and pivotal than the technical considerations.

¶63

Bhattach.arjee Vs. Managing Committee2 held as under;

¶64

From the aforesaid authorities the principles that can broadly be culled out are:

¶65

21.1 (i) Teere should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented, non-pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courts are hot supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice.

¶66

21.2 (l1l'[he terms "sufficient cause" should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basi<:ally elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtainin6; fact- situation.

¶67

21.3 (iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerrrtions should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis.

¶68

2l.a (iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of.

¶69

xxxxx

¶70

1

¶71

The above findings of the Honble supreme court squarely

¶72

apply to the facts of the instant case

¶73

^^{;: (2013)1:l scc 64e}

¶74

:t .d

¶75

6

¶76

SK, J C.R.P.No.3904 of 2025

¶77

o

¶78

In the instant case, the petitioner has filed chief affidavit of P.w.1 and p.w.2 along with I.A.No.S T of 2024 in o.s.No.67 of 2oLT and restoration petition under order IX Rule 9 R/w Section 151 cpc. The trial court has to take into account the sarne as readiness of the petitioner to proceed further in the suit. In these circumstances, the condone delay petition fired by the petitioner in I.A.No.57 of 2024 in o.S.No.6T of 2o17 is liable to be allowed subject to condition that the petitioner has to pay an amount of Rs.10,oo0/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the District Legal services Authority, yadadri Bhuvanagiri District, Bhuvanagiri.

¶79

In view of the above findings, the civil Revision Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order passed in I.A.No.5T of 2024 in o.S.No.67 of 2oLT on the file of the Principal Senior civil Judge, Bhuvanagiri dated .22.04.2o25 and consequently I.A.No.S T of 2024 in o.s.No.6 7 of 2olr is alrowed by condoning the delay of 165 =day. in filing restoration petition subject to condition that the petitioner has to deposit the amount of Rs. 10,000/-

¶80

7

¶81

SK, J C.R.P.No.3904^{of 2025}

¶82

the District^Legal (Rupees ten thousand only)^before Services Authority, Yadadri^{BhuvanagiriDistrict,} Bhuvanagiri, within^{eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt} of a cop.y of this order^{and the trial Court is directed to} dispose^,tf the Interlocutory^{Application filed under Order} IX Rule !) C.P.C. R/W^{Sec.151 CPC to restore the suit to its} original s;tage as^{per law. No order as to costs'}

¶83