Telangana High Court
S.Yamini Vally vs Sashi Kumar Khanna on 17 June, 2022
Bench: P.Sree Sudha
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1401 of 2020
ORDER
1. This civil revision petition is filed aggrieved by the order
dated 19.12.2019 passed in I.A.No.816 of 2016 in O.S.No.848 of
2012 on the file of the learned VII Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.
2. The petitioners herein are defendant Nos.2 and 18 in the
suit. They filed an application viz., I.A.No.816 of 2016 in the
suit under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking to condone
the delay of 88 days in filing the petition to set aside the order.
In fact, O.S.No.848 of 2012 was filed for declaration of title and
for injunction. The petitioners herein could not cross-examine
P.W.1 and as such they were set ex parte on 20.01.2016.
Thereafter, the matter was posted for arguments on 01.02.2016
and judgment was passed on 22.02.2016. The petitioners would
further state that the first petitioner is staying at Vijayanagaram
and the second petitioner is staying at Hyderabad. Due to the ill
health they could not contact their counsel and the counsel not
even applied for certified copies and on their instructions the
counsel applied for certified copy on 21.04.2016 and the same
was received on 13.05.2016 and collected the same on
08.06.2016 and contacted the counsel on 12.06.2016 and then
filed a petition to condone the delay of 88 days but the said
application was dismissed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the
same they preferred the present Civil Revision Petition with the
delay of 223 days.
2. Even in the application the second petitioner would state
that he is aged 62 years suffering from old age ailments and
doctors advised not to travel and as such there was a delay of
223 days.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents would state that the
inordinate delay of seven months and thirteen days is not
explained properly and in fact the present revision is preferred
against the dismissal of delay condonation petition of 88 days.
As there is no due diligence on the part of the petitioners, the
petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. Whereas the petitioners herein contended that a
reasonable opportunity may to be given to them for contesting
the matter. They could not cross-examine P.W.1 and as such
ex parte judgment was passed in favour of the respondents
herein.
5. Now it is for this Court to see whether there is any
justification to condone the delay in preferring the revision.
Petitioners 1 and 2 herein are defendants 2 and 18 in the suit.
Admittedly, they know about the pendency of the suit but could
not cross-examine P.W.1 in spite of granting sufficient
opportunity and as such they were set ex parte on 20.01.2016
itself. They stated that they came to know about the same
subsequently. It is for them to pursue the litigation with due
diligence. When once they have knowledge about the pendency
of the suit, they cannot simply contend that they have not
contacted the counsel and do not know about the proceedings
as they were residing at Vijayanagaram and Hyderabad
respectively. As the second petitioner is residing at Hyderabad
at least he ought to have pursued the litigation properly. This
clearly shows that they are negligent and therefore there is a
delay of 88 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte
judgment passed by the trial Court. Moreover, when they
preferred revision against the said order at least they should file
it within the time but, for the same reasons stated by them
there is delay of 223 days in filing the revision and the reasons
stated by them for the abnormal delay is neither convincing not
satisfactory. The Courts will not help the parties who sleep over
the matter for a long time. Though the petitioners stated that
they have health issues, nothing prevented them to contact the
counsel and give instructions over phone.
6. In the light of the above, this Court finds that there are no
merits in the revision and the same is accordingly dismissed.
7. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal
shall also dismissed in the light of this final order.
____________________
P.SREE SUDHA, J.
17th JUNE, 2022.
PGS
