HON'BLE Smt. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2117 of 2021
ORDER
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 21.01.2021 passed in I.A.No.72 of 2020 in O.S.No.862 of 2018 on the file of the learned IX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereby the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act filed by the petitioners-defendants is dismissed.
2. The petitioners herein filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 411 days in filing the written statement. She is the first defendant in the suit filed for perpetual injunction in O.S.No.862 of 2018. She asserted that she went to USA on 11.07.2019 and returned to India on 13.11.2019. When she enquired about the suit, her counsel informed that the suit was decreed ex parte on 12.10.2018. When the suit is coming up for filing the written statement of the defendants on 20.08.2018, the defendants could not file it and as such the suit was decreed ex parte.
2
3. Perusal of the record shows that the defendant was set ex parte even prior to her visit to USA. According to her she went to USA in the month of July, 2019 and returned to India in the month of November, 2019 and whereas the suit is posted for filing of written statement in the month of August, 2018 and as the defendant failed to file the same, the suit was decreed ex parte on 12.10.2018 itself. Therefore, the reasons stated by the defendant that she could not file the written statement as she went to USA is not tenable. The defendant is a landlady and the suit is filed by the plaintiff- tenant praying the Court to grant injunction restraining the defendants from interfering or entering or dispossessing him from the suit schedule property without following due process of law. It is on record that the defendant herein also filed another suit viz., O.S.No.1623 of 2018 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge against the plaintiff herein seeking for eviction from the plaint schedule property and arrears of rent and it is still pending.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners would submit that in view of the pendency of the revision, the respondent is not paying arrears of rent. Learned counsel 3 also submitted that the concept of explaining the delay of each day was diluted in view of the judgment of the Apex Court and thus the delay in filing petition is to be condoned by giving opportunity for the petitioners herein to contest the matter.
5. It is for the petitioner herein to furnish sufficient reason for condoning the delay. The reasons stated by the petitioners herein are no way connected to non-filing of written statement since she is very much available in India during that point of time. The petitioners should have instructed the counsel properly and pursued the litigation with due diligence, but she failed to do so. Moreover, since the petitioner has already filed the suit seeking eviction against the respondent herein, no prejudice would be caused if she is set ex parte in the suit.
6. The trial Court after considering the arguments advanced by both the counsel and also the case law cited before it, dismissed the application. The trial Court further observed that the second petitioner herein is no other than the son of the first petitioner and he is very much present in 4 India, but he could not pursue the litigation for the reasons best known to him. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the order under challenge.
7. In the result the civil revision petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed confirming the order under challenge.
8. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this revision shall also stand dismissed in the light of this final order.
____________________ P.SREE SUDHA, J.
27th SEPTEMBER, 2022.
PGS