THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY
C.R.P.No.1327 OF 2016
ORDER:
This civil revision petition under Section 115 CPC is directed against the common order dated 19.08.2015 in E.A.Nos.345 & 346 of 2014 in E.P.No.79 of 2007, on the file of the V-Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, wherein the said applications filed by the petitioner-3rd party, were dismissed.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondents despite service of notice. Perused the record.
3. The petitioner herein is a 3rd party claim petitioner, respondent No.1 is the decree holder and respondent Nos.2 to 10 are the judgment debtors in E.P.No.79 of 2007, which was filed to direct the judgment debtors to execute registered sale deed in favour of respondent No.1. While so, the petitioner herein has filed claim petition in E.A.No.389 of 2014 along with stay petition in E.A.No.390 of 2014. The decree holder filed counter in E.A.No.389 of 2014 and the matter was posted to 25.02.2014 for enquiry. As there was no representation for the petitioner, the matter was 2 posted to 22.03.2014. On that day also, there was no representation and it was again posted to 27.03.2014 by imposing costs of Rs.300/- and from that day, it was again posted to 17.04.2014. Even on 17.04.2014, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner, resulting in dismissal of E.A.No.389 of 2014 for default and closure of stay petition in E.A.No.390 of 2014. On 17.04.2014, the petitioner filed an application in E.A (SR) No.2277 of 2014 under Order XIII Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC to summon the record from the Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban land Ceiling, Hyderabad in respect of complaint lodged by the decree holder containing his original signatures. Subsequently, when the said application was returned on 05.06.2014 on the ground of maintainability, learned counsel came to know that E.P.No.389 of 2014 was already dismissed for default. To set aside the order of dismissal dated 17.04.2014, the petitioner filed an application in E.A.No.346 of 2014. As there was a delay of 30 days in filing the said application, the petitioner filed an application in E.A.No.345 of 2014 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the said delay. The trial court by the order impugned dismissed the said 3 applications holding that the petitioner has failed to show sufficient cause. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed.
4. A perusal of the record would disclose that there was a delay of 30 days in filing the application to set aside the dismissal order dated 17.04.2014. In the affidavit filed in support of the application seeking condonation of delay, the petitioner had specifically stated that he came to know about the dismissal of the application i.e., E.A.No.389 of 2014 only when the application E.A (SR) No.2277 of 2014 under Order XIII Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC to summon the record from the Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban land Ceiling, Hyderabad was returned on 05.06.2014. Immediately, the petitioner filed E.A.Nos.345 & 346 of 2014 with prayers as stated above.
5. The petitioner had shown sufficient cause for the delay in the affidavit filed by him in support of the application seeking condonation of delay and no prejudice would be caused to the decree holder, if the said application is allowed. Hence, I am of the opinion that there are justifiable grounds to condone the delay of 30 days in 4 filing the application to set aside the dismissal order dated 17.04.2014.
6. In the circumstances, the impugned order can be set aside imposing some terms.
7. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed. The common order dated 19.08.2015 in E.A.Nos.345 & 346 of 2014 in E.P.No.79 of 2007 is hereby set aside, subject to payment of costs of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) to respondent No.1-decree holder within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the petitioner shall file proof of payment before the trial court. Consequently, E.A.Nos.345 & 346 of 2014 stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
8. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, stand closed.
_______________________ A.SANTHOSH REDDY, J 14.11.2022 Lrkm