Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Duvvada Savithri vs Smt. Vankara Savithri on 21 March, 2023
Bench: K Manmadha Rao
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.5 and 6 of 2020
COMMON ORDER :
As the issue involved in these civil revision petitions is
one and the same, these matters are taken up together for
disposal by this Common Order.
2. These two Civil Revision Petitions are filed against
the order dated 24.07.2017 passed in I.A.No.730 of 2016 in
I.A.No.573 of 2009 in A.S.No.285 of 2007 on the file of the
VII Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam.
3. Heard Mr. T.V. Jaggi Reddy, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and Mr. E.V.V.S. Ravi Kumar,
learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
4. Originally the suit in O.S.No.2 of 2006 was filed on
the file of Senior Civil Judge, Yelamanchili for specific
performance of agreement of sale and the petitioner herein
claimed possession also. The said suit was dismissed.
Against the same, the petitioner herein filed an appeal in
A.S.No.285 of 2007 and the same was also dismissed.
Thereafter, the petitioner filed an Interlocutory Application
2
in I.A No.383 of 2008 to reopen the case for submitting legal
possession. But as the petitioner did not adduce any
arguments and since there was no representation, the said
I.A. was dismissed on 14.7.2008. Again, on 15.7.2008
another I.A. was filed for restoration vide I.A No.383 of 2008.
However, as there was no representation, the said
application was also dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner
again filed I.A.No.789 of 2008 and I.A.No.110 of 2008, but
those applications were also dismissed as there was no
representation.
5. On perusing the entire material available on
record, it seems that the petitioner was not interested in
prosecuting the case on those four occasions. Now the
present I.A.No.730 of 2016 which is 5th one filed under
Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay of 2072
days in filing the I.A. set aside the dismissal order dated
01.05.2009 in IA No.537 of 2009. This Court observed that
the trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that
the delay is more than six and a half years and nearly five
such applications were filed on behalf of the petitioner and
they were all dismissed for default. It was also held that the
3
party must be vigilant when several times the petitions were
dismissed for default. The appellate Court relied upon the
judgment between U.P Awas Evam Vikas Parishad vs.
Vithal Das and another1, wherein the Hon'ble Allahabad
High Court held that delay has to be explained while taking
benefit of Section 5 of Limitation Act. In addition to it, the
appellate court has also relied upon another judgment
reported in V.S.H. Babu vs. V. Savitri and others2, wherein
the Court refused to condone the delay of 536 and 542 days
in seeking review of common judgment, since the ground
pleaded was the delay was on account counsel's mistake
and unless it is proved that the mistake is a bonafide one,
said delay cannot be condoned. The appellate Court
dismissed the impugned I.A. only on the ground that the
condonation of delay is not a routine matter, but the delay
must be explained. It also held that the delay is more than
six and half years and nearly five such applications were
filed on behalf of the petitioner and they were all dismissed
for default and also held that the party must be vigilant
when several times the petitions were dismissed for default.
1
2011 (5) ADJ 214
2
2015 (4) ALT 134
4
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon
a case reported in Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Managing
Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others3,
wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:
From the aforesaid authorities the principles that can broadly be
culled out are:
i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented, non-
pedantic approach while dealing with an application for
condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise
injustice but are obliged to remove injustice.
ii) The terms "sufficient cause" should be understood in their proper
spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that
these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper
perspective to the obtaining fact- situation.
7. The contention of the petitioner is that she filed
suit in OS.No.2 of 2006 on the file of Senior Civil Judge,
Yelamanchili against the respondents to execute registered
sale deed in his favour or in the name of his nominee.
Along with suit she also filed I.A No.9 of 2006 for grant of
temporary injunction restraining the defendants from
interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment over
plaint schedule property and also not to alienate the suit
schedule mentioned property in which she obtained interim
orders. Later, the said suit was dismissed on 6.9.2007.
3
(2013) 6 Supreme 545
5
Accordingly, she filed an appeal in AS No.285 of 2007 and
also third party affidavit along with I.A No.1033 of 2007.
The said appeal was dismissed by the appellate court on
14.7.2008 as the appellant failed to comply with the orders
in I.A No.383 of 2008, since the advocate reported not ready
as he was engaged as Standing Counsel for GVMC. Hence,
she filed I.A No.789 of 2008 to set aside the dismissal order
dated 14.7.2008. The same was allowed by the appellate
court vide order dated 15.7.2008 on a condition that both
parties should adduce arguments on 27.8.2008. But for
non compliance of condition it was again dismissed.
8. In view of the foregoing discussion and the
citations referred to above, this Court observed that since
the advocate on record on behalf of the petitioner in the
lower court died as there was no information for the
petitioner her counsel she did not know the dismissal of the
I.A. Since her counsel died and the office record pertaining
to the case could not be found and after waiting for long
time she approached another counsel at Visakhapatnam.
6
9. Having considered the submissions of learned
counsel for the petitioner, this Court is inclined to dispose of
the present revision petition.
10. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are
disposed of. The orders dated 24.07.2017 passed in
I.A.No.731 of 2016 and I.A.No.730 of 2016 in I.A.No.573 of
2009 in A.S.No.285 of 2007 on the file of VII Additional
District Judge (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam, are
hereby set aside on payment of costs of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees
Two thousand only) to be paid by the petitioner to the credit
of A.S.No.285 of 2007. Further, since the appeal pertains to
the year 2007, the appellate Court is directed to dispose of
the said appeal, as expeditiously, as possible, preferably,
within a period of six (06) months, from the date of receipt of
a copy of this order.
As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous
applications shall stand closed.
______________________________
DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
Date : -03-2023
Gvl
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.5 and 60 of 2020
Date : .03.2023
Gvl
