Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Koppolu Subba Lakshumma, vs Amulu Alias Koppoli Mary, on 5 February, 2024
THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI
Civil Revision Petition No.2708 of 2023
ORDER:
This Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of
India against the order dated 31.08.2023, allowing the petition in
I.A.No.215 of 2023 in O.S.No.22 of 2019 on the file of Junior Civil Judge,
Sidhout filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay of 189
days in filing the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. to set aside the
decree and judgment dated 02.09.2022.
2. The revision petitioners are the plaintiffs No.1, 3 and 4 and the 5th
respondent is the 2nd plaintiff. The respondents No.1 to 4 are the
defendants No.1 to 4.
3. The plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S.No.22 of 2019, to declare that the
plaintiff No.1 is legally wedded wife and the plaintiffs No.2 to 4 are the
children of late Koppolu Prabhakar. The 1st defendant filed written
statement opposing the suit and it is also contended that the suit is bad for
non-joinder of necessary parties as the parents of the deceased are alive
and are not made as parties to the suit.
4. The defendant filed I.A.No.215 of 2023 on the ground that initially
the 1st petitioner came to know that due to COVID-19 pandemic situation,
the physical presence of the litigants was not required and further the
counsel stated to her that after pandemic situation, PW-1 would be cross
examined and 1st petitioner has to attend the Court to give her evidence
BSB, J
and she is illiterate and lost her contact with the counsel due to loss of
phone number, and that the recent enquiries made by her revealed that
ex-parte decree was passed on 02.09.2022 and the delay is due to the
above said reason and there are no latches.
5. The petition was opposed by filing the counter of the plaintiffs
denying the reasons stated by the petitioners.
6. After hearing both parties, the trial Court partly allowed the petition
on the condition of payment of Rs.200/- to Mandal Legal Service Authority,
Sidhout, on or before 13.09.2023.
7. Being aggrieved by the order, this revision petition is filed stating
that the petitioners failed to show the sufficient cause for the long delay.
The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the delay has not
been duly explained, however, the trial Court allowed the petition and
further submitted that the delay in disposal of the suit has caused hardship
to the plaintiffs, since the death benefits were held up due to the dispute.
8. The learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 4 submits that the
suit was wrongly filed against some persons and the description of the
defendants is incorrect. He further submits that the parents of the deceased
are alive and are very much necessary parties, however, they were not
made as parties and therefore steps were taken to get them impleaded. He
further submits that unless a fair opportunity is given to the existing
defendants and also to the parents of the deceased, it would result in
BSB, J
injustice as the truth would not come out. He further submits that it is only
after consideration of the arguments on both sides, the petition was
allowed by the trial Court by imposing costs.
9. Whenever an application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act, the delay has to be explained by showing sufficient cause. According to
the petitioners, due to the instructions by the earlier counsel, the 1st
defendant was supposed to attend to Court on receipt of instructions from
the counsel as physical presence during the COVID-19 pandemic period
was dispensed with and later she could not contact her counsel due to loss
of phone number. The trial Court believed the same and allowed the
petition. Apparently, there is no error committed by the trial Court to
interfere with such conclusion drawn by the trial Court by exercising
jurisdiction of this High Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India.
Moreover, for adjudication of dispute of serious nature by conducting
full-fledged trial, it is desirable to condone the delay by imposing certain
costs, if necessary. In the present case, there is no error committed by the
trial Court. As such, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order
impugned in the revision. However, the petitioners expressed urgency for
disposal of the suit and owing to the long pendency of the suit, there is
stagnation in the release of death benefits which causes hardship to either
parties. Since the suit is also instituted in the year, 2019 and is an old
matter, this Court is of the view that the trial Court can be directed to
dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. Since the petition under
BSB, J
Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. which also is based on the same reason as in the
present petition is still pending for enquiry and as per the representation of
the learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 4, the implead petition is
also pending, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit within a
period of six (06) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order, in
the event of allowing the petition filed under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C., which
shall also be expeditiously disposed of without any further delay. There
shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
Interim orders granted earlier, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________________
B.S.BHANUMATHI, J
05.02.2024
MKK
