HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1713 of 2016
ORDER:
This revision is directed to set aside the order dated 16.03.2016 in I.A.No.619 of 2014 in unregistered Appeal suit of the year 2014 on the file of Principal District Judge's Court, Nalgonda.
2. The petitioners are the plaintiffs filed suit in O.S.No.21 of 2007 against the respondents/defendants, before the Junior Civil Judge's Court at Ramannapet, for perpetual Injunction restraining them from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. While so, the trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 08.11.2013. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed appeal along with I.A.No.619 of 2014 to condone the delay of (152) days in preferring the said appeal. The Principal District Judge, Nalgonda dismissed the said application vide impugned order dated 16.03.2016. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is preferred.
2
3. A perusal of the record would disclose that the petitioners ought to have preferred the appeal against the impugned judgment on or before 07.12.2013, but they could not prefer the same. The petitioners contended that first petitioner is looking after the case on behalf of petitioner Nos. 2 to 8 and 10 to 14 and also on behalf of petitioner Nos.15 and 16, who are the legal representatives of deceased-petitioner No.9. The petitioners in the affidavit filed along with the application to condone the delay of (152) days stated that the first petitioner, who was aged about 61 years, fell sick and was suffering from old age ailments. The delay was neither intentional nor deliberate. Admittedly, the explanation is given by the first petitioner in his affidavit is not satisfactory. The petitioners have not filed any scrap of paper in proof of ill-ness of the first petitioner. There is no explanation offered by the petitioners as to why other petitioners have not taken steps in preferring the appeal, if the first petitioner fell ill.
4. It is settled principle of law that while dealing with application under Section 5 of the Act, the Courts should not approach pedantic and hyper technical approach. The Court has to 3 examine as to whether there is sufficient cause to explain the delay and whether said cause is genuine or bonafidees of the party.
5. In the present case, though the petitioners sought to contend that delay occurred due ill-ness of the first petitioner, it appears there are no bonafidees on the part of the petitioners and it is not possible to accept the same as sufficient cause without any evidence. Therefore, while dismissing the application, the trial Court rightly took a view that the petitioners failed to show sufficient cause to condone the delay of (152) days. Therefore, the impugned order, which is passed on due consideration of the material on record and in proper exercise of discretion, does not call for any interference.
6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
________________________ A.SANTHOSH REDDY, J 17.11.2022 Nvl