Telangana High Court
V P Kumar, Hyderabad vs K. Brahma Chary , R.R.Dist 9 Others on 14 November, 2022
Bench: A.Santhosh Reddy
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY
C.R.P.No.1327 OF 2016
ORDER:
This civil revision petition under Section 115 CPC is directed
against the common order dated 19.08.2015 in E.A.Nos.345 & 346
of 2014 in E.P.No.79 of 2007, on the file of the V-Additional Senior
Civil Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, wherein the said
applications filed by the petitioner-3rd party, were dismissed.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for
the respondents despite service of notice. Perused the record.
3. The petitioner herein is a 3rd party claim petitioner, respondent
No.1 is the decree holder and respondent Nos.2 to 10 are the
judgment debtors in E.P.No.79 of 2007, which was filed to direct the
judgment debtors to execute registered sale deed in favour of
respondent No.1. While so, the petitioner herein has filed claim
petition in E.A.No.389 of 2014 along with stay petition in
E.A.No.390 of 2014. The decree holder filed counter in E.A.No.389
of 2014 and the matter was posted to 25.02.2014 for enquiry.
As there was no representation for the petitioner, the matter was
posted to 22.03.2014. On that day also, there was no representation
and it was again posted to 27.03.2014 by imposing costs of
Rs.300/- and from that day, it was again posted to 17.04.2014. Even
on 17.04.2014, there was no representation on behalf of the
petitioner, resulting in dismissal of E.A.No.389 of 2014 for default
and closure of stay petition in E.A.No.390 of 2014. On 17.04.2014,
the petitioner filed an application in E.A (SR) No.2277 of 2014 under
Order XIII Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC to summon the record
from the Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban land
Ceiling, Hyderabad in respect of complaint lodged by the decree
holder containing his original signatures. Subsequently, when the
said application was returned on 05.06.2014 on the ground of
maintainability, learned counsel came to know that E.P.No.389 of
2014 was already dismissed for default. To set aside the order of
dismissal dated 17.04.2014, the petitioner filed an application in
E.A.No.346 of 2014. As there was a delay of 30 days in filing the
said application, the petitioner filed an application in E.A.No.345 of
2014 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the said
delay. The trial court by the order impugned dismissed the said
applications holding that the petitioner has failed to show sufficient
cause. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed.
4. A perusal of the record would disclose that there was a delay
of 30 days in filing the application to set aside the dismissal order
dated 17.04.2014. In the affidavit filed in support of the application
seeking condonation of delay, the petitioner had specifically stated
that he came to know about the dismissal of the application i.e.,
E.A.No.389 of 2014 only when the application E.A (SR) No.2277 of
2014 under Order XIII Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC to
summon the record from the Special Officer and Competent
Authority, Urban land Ceiling, Hyderabad was returned on
05.06.2014. Immediately, the petitioner filed E.A.Nos.345 & 346 of
2014 with prayers as stated above.
5. The petitioner had shown sufficient cause for the delay in the
affidavit filed by him in support of the application seeking
condonation of delay and no prejudice would be caused to the decree
holder, if the said application is allowed. Hence, I am of the opinion
that there are justifiable grounds to condone the delay of 30 days in
filing the application to set aside the dismissal order dated
17.04.2014.
6. In the circumstances, the impugned order can be set aside
imposing some terms.
7. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed. The
common order dated 19.08.2015 in E.A.Nos.345 & 346 of 2014 in
E.P.No.79 of 2007 is hereby set aside, subject to payment of costs of
Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) to respondent No.1-decree
holder within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order and the petitioner shall file proof of payment
before the trial court. Consequently, E.A.Nos.345 & 346 of 2014
stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
8. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, stand closed.
_______________________
A.SANTHOSH REDDY, J
14.11.2022
Lrkm
