Telangana High Court
M/S. Granite And Granite And ... vs M/S Ganesh Benzoplast Ltd. And 3 ... on 29 April, 2021
Bench: T.Amarnath Goud
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.597 of 2021
ORDER:
1 Challenge in this Civil Revision Petition is to the order
dated 12.3.2021 made in I.A.No.476 of 2019 in O.S.No.140 of
2007 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Judge,
Medak wherein and whereby the learned District Judge
dismissed the petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act
to condone delay of 2724 days in filing review petition to review
the judgment and decree dated 15.7.2011 passed in O.S.No.140
of 2007.
2 Petitioners are judgment debtors in the said suit. Their
case is that the suit was filed on flimsy grounds and
perpetuating fraud, the plaintiff in the suit obtained the decree
on 15.7.2011. The trial Court adjudicated the matter without
giving proper finding on all issues. However, due to family,
health and personal issues and also being layman having no
knowledge of law and having depended upon their counsel, they
could not pursue the matter. Hence they filed the I.A.No.476 of
2019 with a delay of 2,724 days to review the judgment in the
suit.
3 The decree holder contested the matter stating that the
petitioners have already availed the remedy of appeal and as
such during the pendency of the appeal a review itself is not
maintainable.
4 As seen from the record, the suit O.S.No.140 of 2007 was
decreed on 15.7.2011 by granting preliminary decree for
Rs.10.00 lakhs with interest @ 25% p.a. from 04.01.1997 till the
date of judgment and at 12% p.a, thereafter. Aggrieved by the
judgment and decree, the petitioners filed an appeal before the
High Court and the High Court granted a conditional stay on
19.01.2012. Thereafter an SLP was preferred to the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, but the same was dismissed. However, time
was extended for deposit of the amount, as was directed by the
High Court while granting interim stay. It is also to be seen
from the record that when the plaintiff filed an application
under Order 34 Rule 3 (2) CPC to pass a final decree the
petitioners filed an application before the High Court for
expeditious disposal of the appeal. The trial Court passed a
final decree on 21.10.2016. Subsequently the decree holder /
plaintiff filed an E.P. in the year 2018 seeking delivery of the
subject property.
5 Taking into consideration the totality of circumstances,
this Court is of the view that the plea of the petitioners that they
are not well versed with the legal proceedings is inappropriate.
Moreover the petitioners have not filed even a single scrap of
paper to establish their health problem. As seen from the
record, the petitioners are fighting before the courts for the last
2 to 3 decades. Hence they cannot plead mercy for not being
vigilant for all these days. The delay pleaded to be condoned is
2,724 days which is inordinate more so unexplained.
6 However, as far as the maintainability of the review
petition is concerned, under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment
may be opened to review, inter alia, if there is a mistake or an
error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not
self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning,
can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the
record justifying the court to exercise its power of review
under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction
under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an
erroneous decision to be 'reheard and corrected'. The petitioner
can always agitate his grievance in an appeal.
7 Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case,
this Court is of the opinion that the trial Court has rightly
exercised its discretionary power in reading to its findings. In
filing the delay condonation petition the petitioner expressed
ignorance of law which is no excuse to condone the delay. No
evidence is filed to show that the petitioner is under medical
care for 2724 days. Petitioner has not shown sufficient cause to
condone the delay. I see no ground much less valid and
convincing reason to condone such an inordinate and
unexplained delay. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of any
merit.
8 In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed
sustaining the order dated 12.3.2021 made in I.A.No.476 of
2019 in O.S.No.140 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the
Principal District Judge, Medak. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this Civil Revision
Petition shall also stand dismissed.
__________________________
T. AMARNATH GOUD, J.
Date: 29 -04-2021
Kvsn
