HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6760 of 2017
ORDER:
This revision is filed challenging the order, dated 22.06.2018, in I.A.No.231 of 2008 in O.S.No.39 of 1997 on the file of Senior Civil Judge's Court, Medak.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. None represented the respondents. Perused the record.
3. The petitioners are the plaintiffs filed O.S.No.39 of 1997 for specific performance of contract and for Perpetual Injunction against the respondents/defendants. The said suit was dismissed for default on 08.06.2001. Subsequently, the petitioners have filed I.A.No.230 of 2001 and the same was also dismissed for default vide order dated 12.04.2005, as the petitioners failed to pay the process. Later, I.A.No.231 of 2008 was filed under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure (C.P.C.) to condone the delay of (973) days in filing the petition to restore the I.A.No.230 of 2001. Counter affidavit was also filed by the respondents opposing the same. 2 The trial Court on considering the contentions of both sides dismissed the I.A.No.231 of 2008 vide order dated 22.06.2012. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that authorized person of the first petitioner by name M.Mamatha fell ill and that she was admitted in Osmania General Hospital. They have also filed medical certificate to that effect. The petitioners have shown sufficient cause for the delay in filing the application to set aside the dismissal order in I.A.No.230 of 2001. He also submits that the trial Court has committed error by not condoning the delay and dismissed the application. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the judgment of Apex court in Dr.Yashwantrao Bhaskarrao Deshmukh v. Raghunath Kisan Saindane1.
5. On perusal of the record, it is seen O.S.No.39 of 1997 was filed by the petitioners seeking specific performance of contract and for Perpetual Injunction. The said suit was dismissed for default on 08.06.2001, as the petitioners failed to adduce 1 Civil Appeal No.6315 of 2021, dated 08.10.2021 3 evidence. The petitioners filed I.A.No.230 of 2001 for restoration of said suit, but the same was also dismissed for default, as they failed to pay process. Subsequently, the impugned application was filed to condone the delay of (973) days in filing the petition to restore I.A.No.230 of 2001.
6. The petitioners mainly contend that authorized person of the first petitioner fell sick and she was admitted in Osmania General Hospital and also filed medical certificates to that effect. The respondents filed counter affidavit before the trial Court and opposed the said application contending that medical certificates are false and fabricated. Inspite of the same, the petitioners have not taken any steps to examine the medical officers, who issued the said medical certificates, to prove genuineness or otherwise of the same.
7. I have carefully considered Dr.Yashwantrao Bhaskarrao Deshmukh's case supra. The facts and circumstances of the said case are different from the facts of this case. In the said case, there was communication gap between the client and counsel. In such a situation, lenient view has to be taken. In the instant case, the only 4 ground urged by the petitioners that due to ill-health of the authorized person of the first petitioner, they could not pursue the suit. But they failed to take steps to substantiate the said contention with any reliable evidence, oral or documentary. Thus, the trial Court has rightly taken a view that the petitioners failed to show sufficient cause to condone the delay of (973) days and dismissed the application. The impugned order, refusing to condone the delay, does not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
8. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this revision, shall stand closed.
______________________________ JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY 15.11.2022 Nvl