Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Karri Ramanamma vs Karri Appa Rao on 22 August, 2024
APHC010545782023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3311]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.: 2912/2023 and 154 of 2024
Between:
Karri Ramanamma and Others ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
Karri Apparao ...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
Sri. S DILIP JAYA RAM
Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri. S.V.S.S.SIVA RAM
The Court made the following:
2
BSB, J
C.R.P.Nos.2912 of 2023 & 154 of 2024
COMMON ORDER:
C.R.P.No.2912 of 2023 is directed against the order, dated
14.08.2023, dismissing I.A.No.871 of 2023 in O.S.No.273 of 2020 on
the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka, filed under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone delay of 242 days in filing
petition to set aside the decree and judgment, dated 25.03.2022,
passed against the petitioners/defendants.
C.R.P.No.154 of 2024 is directed against the order, dated
12.01.2024, dismissing I.A.No.1082 of 2023 in unregistered appeal of
the year 2023.
2. Heard Sri S.Dilip Jayaram, learned counsel for the petitioners/
defendants and Sri S.V.S.S.Siva Ram, learned counsel for the
respondent/plaintiff.
3. The facts that lead to filing of these two revisions, in brief, are as
follows:
The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.273 of 2020 on the file of the
Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka, against the defendants for
eviction and recovery of arrears of rent. The defendants engaged a
counsel. The matter was called on 25.11.2021 for filing the written
statement by the defendants. The 1 st defendant is the only person
BSB, J
C.R.P.Nos.2912 of 2023 & 154 of 2024
looking after all the affairs of the family. On account of her ill-health,
she was in an unmovable situation and later, due to Carona pandemic
situation, she could not meet her counsel for filing written statement and
also due to misplacement of certain necessary documents. Thereafter,
though she met her counsel, her counsel underwent surgery and was
suffering ill-health. Thus, an ex parte decree came to be passed on
25.03.2022. In the aforesaid circumstances, the 1st defendant could not
file petition to set aside the decree and judgment, dated 25.03.2022,
passed against the defendants. Hence, I.A.No.871 of 2023 is filed to
condone delay of 242 days in filing petition to set aside the decree and
judgment, dated 25.03.2022.
b. Further, due to Covid-19 pandemic, the defendants could not
meet their earlier counsel to file an appeal as they are unable to move
anywhere. Thereafter, they engaged another counsel and obtained
certified copies of the ex parte decree and judgment in the suit recently.
Thus, a delay of 522 days had occasioned in filing the appeal.
c. The respondent/plaintiff filed separate counters in both the
petitions denying the averments in the petitions and contending that the
petitioners/defendants' counsel filed vakalat on their behalf on
31.03.2021, subsequently the above suit stands posted for written
statement on 04.05.2021, 15.07.2021, 01.09.2021, 22.10.2021,
BSB, J
C.R.P.Nos.2912 of 2023 & 154 of 2024
25.11.2021 and 06.01.2022 and as the defendants failed to file written
statement, an ex parte decree and judgment was passed on
25.03.2022. The respondent/DHr filed E.P.No.202 of 2022 against the
defendants for eviction and symbolic delivery warrant was executed on
14.11.2022, but the defendants filed I.A.No.871 of 2023 in the month of
January, 2023. The delay of 242 days is extraordinary and calculation
of the delay is not correct.
d. In the counter filed in I.A.No.1082 of 2023, it is contended that
basing on the decree, dated 25.03.2022, the respondent/plaintiff filed
E.P.No.202 of 2022 on 28.12.2022 and in the said execution petition
also, the appellants filed vakalat and contested the same. The E.P
stands posted to 02.01.2023, 18.01.2023, 23.01.2023, 28.02.2023,
06.04.2023, 25.04.2023, 03.05.2023, 15.05.2023, 26.06.2023,
04.07.2023, 10.07.2023, 17.07.2023, 24.07.2023, 27.07.2023,
04.08.2023, 14.08.2023 and on 16.08.2023, the court ordered delivery
warrant to handover physical possession of the property. The petition
filed, vide I.A.No.871 of 2023 was dismissed on 24.07.2023 and the
petitioner/appellant has not preferred any appeal, whereas the present
petition was filed to condone delay of 525 days by showing different
cause for the delay. Subsequently, on 14.11.2022, the officer of the
Court symbolically executed delivery warrant and the same was
BSB, J
C.R.P.Nos.2912 of 2023 & 154 of 2024
recorded. The EP stands posted to 20.10.2023, 24.10.2023,
24.11.2023 and 12.12.2023. On one hand, the petitioners/appellants
were obstructing execution of the court orders and on the other,
approaching this Court by filing petitions with false and frivolous
allegations. The respondent is a senior citizen suffering from old age
ailments. The delay is abnormal and is not properly explained. The
petition is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
4. After hearing both parties, the trial Court dismissed both the
petitions observing that there is abnormal delay of more than nine
months and they failed to produce any record and no sufficient reasons
are assigned for not filing the applications in time.
5. Hence, these two revisions by the petitioners/ defendants.
6. Insofar as I.A.No.871 of 2023 is concerned, the learned counsel
for the petitioners submitted that the 1st defendant is the only person
who has been looking after all the affairs of the family and due to her ill-
health, she could not give instructions to the counsel for preparation of
the written statement and later Carona pandemic situation, in addition to
her ill-health prevented her from filing the written statement. In addition
thereto, he submitted that some of the documents also were misplaced
due to which the written statement could not be instructed to be filed.
Apart from the reasons, he submitted that the petition is not frivolous
BSB, J
C.R.P.Nos.2912 of 2023 & 154 of 2024
and the suit involves serious dispute of title as disclosed in the written
statement filed along with the petition under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act and under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, since the property originally stood
in the name of the husband of the 1 st petitioner and later there was
mutation of name of the 1st petitioner in the concerned records and
electricity connection also stood in the name of the 1st petitioner and
several other documents as stated in the written statement would show
that the title is with the defendants and not with the plaintiff and they
would further show that the whole case set up by the plaintiff is false.
Therefore, he contended that in the interests of justice, to decide the
dispute on merits rather than preventing the party from contesting the
case on solely technical grounds, a fair opportunity should be given by
adopting a lenient approach while adjudicating the sufficiency of the
cause shown by the petitioners for the delay, however, the trial Court
failed to exercise its discretion while appreciating the reasons shown by
the petitioners.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff
contended that the petitioners deliberately failed to file the written
statement and moreover, they do not establish the reasons stated by
them for the delay, and therefore, the trial Court rightly dismissed the
petitions. He further submitted that the reasons shown by the petitioners
BSB, J
C.R.P.Nos.2912 of 2023 & 154 of 2024
in their application in I.A.No.871 of 2023 are different from the reasons
shown for the delay in I.A.No.1082 of 2023, though some initial part of
the delay is covered by the previous application and the same goes to
show that the petitioners are not trustworthy and the cause shown is not
truthful.
8. The trial Court observed that there is abnormal delay of nine
months in filing the petitions in I.A.No.871 of 2023 along with the petition
under Order IX Rule 13 CPC and that the petitions were filed only after
issuance of warrant for delivery of the property and they have not filed
any record in support of the reasons stated for the delay. The trial Court
has not examined whether the statement made by the petitioners
regarding the reasons for the delay are true or not. All facts need not be
proved through documents/record only. The petitioners contended that
prevalence of carona pandemic situation besides ill-health of the 1st
petitioner who has been looking after the affairs of the case in the family
prevented from meeting the counsel to instruct preparation of the written
statement. The extent of limitations on movement of persons during
pandemic situation is known to all for proof which there is no need to
produce any record. Though the Courts were functioning during that
period, restrictions were imposed on the entry of the persons into the
premises of the court also for a certain period and appearance and filing
BSB, J
C.R.P.Nos.2912 of 2023 & 154 of 2024
through online was permitted. This would go to show that people used
to fear to move and meet. That is why the Supreme Court took note of
the condition prevailing and extended the period of limitation to file the
proceedings before the Courts or any authorities from 15.03.2020 to
28.02.2022. Therefore, even if the petitioners could not show that kind
of ill-health of the 1st petitioner prevented from meeting the counsel by
filing any record, the conditions of pandemic which prevented many
activities in the social life cannot be ignored. Without taking into
consideration of the same, the trial Court, by strict approach as is
adopted in the normal course of conditions, dismissed the petition. It
may also be relevant to note that the petitioners are defending the suit
with material record, which justifies a trial to be conducted or else too
much technical approach in explaining the reason for delay in filing the
petition would go to the root of the matter in rendering justice and may
result in denial of justice. Courts must make an endeavour to render
justice on merits rather than shutting the doors at the threshold. If at all
there is any inconvenience to the respondent/plaintiff, the same could
have been meted by imposing some terms on the petitioners. Thus, the
trial Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction in a proper way and as such,
the impugned order needs to be interfered with.
BSB, J
C.R.P.Nos.2912 of 2023 & 154 of 2024
9. Accordingly, C.R.P.No.2912 of 2023 is allowed setting aside the
order, dated 14.08.2023, passed in I.A.No.871 of 2023 in O.S.No.273 of
2020 on the condition that the petitioners shall pay the respondent a
sum of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) within a period of one
month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order failing which the
petition shall stand dismissed without any further orders.
10. As a sequel to the above order after disposal of the petition under
Order IX Rule 13 CPC, depending on the result therein, the need to file
the appeal would arise. If the same reason constitutes cause for the
delay in filing the petition and also for passing ex parte decree, the
normal principle is to take the same view in both the petitions. Since
petition under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was not heard along with the
petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the same needs to be
disposed of. In the event of setting aside the ex parte decree, since
there would be no requirement to file appeal, it is not necessary to go
into the sustainability of the order passed in I.A.No.1082 of 2023 for the
time being. Hence, this Court is not passing any order on merit with
regard to the same and deems it appropriate to close C.R.P.No.154 of
2024 leaving it open to the petitioners therein to seek fresh hearing in
the event of any adverse order in the petition under Order IX Rule 13
CPC. Accordingly, C.R.P.No.154 of 2024 is closed.
BSB, J
C.R.P.Nos.2912 of 2023 & 154 of 2024
11. In the result, C.R.P.No.2912 of 2023 is allowed and C.R.P.No.154
of 2024 is closed, with liberty aforesaid.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed.
____________________
B. S. BHANUMATHI, J
22-08-2024
RAR
