M/S. Sharada Electo Plating ... vs V.Narsimha Reddy
2022 Latest Caselaw 5846 Tel

      HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

        CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6760 of 2017

ORDER:

This revision is filed challenging the order,

dated 22.06.2018, in I.A.No.231 of 2008 in O.S.No.39 of 1997 on

the file of Senior Civil Judge's Court, Medak.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. None

represented the respondents. Perused the record.

3. The petitioners are the plaintiffs filed O.S.No.39 of 1997

for specific performance of contract and for Perpetual Injunction

against the respondents/defendants. The said suit was dismissed for

default on 08.06.2001. Subsequently, the petitioners have filed

I.A.No.230 of 2001 and the same was also dismissed for default

vide order dated 12.04.2005, as the petitioners failed to pay the

process. Later, I.A.No.231 of 2008 was filed under Order 9 Rule 9

of the Civil Procedure (C.P.C.) to condone the delay of (973) days

in filing the petition to restore the I.A.No.230 of 2001. Counter

affidavit was also filed by the respondents opposing the same.

The trial Court on considering the contentions of both sides

dismissed the I.A.No.231 of 2008 vide order dated 22.06.2012.

Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

authorized person of the first petitioner by name M.Mamatha fell

ill and that she was admitted in Osmania General Hospital. They

have also filed medical certificate to that effect. The petitioners

have shown sufficient cause for the delay in filing the application

to set aside the dismissal order in I.A.No.230 of 2001. He also

submits that the trial Court has committed error by not condoning

the delay and dismissed the application. In support of his

contentions, he placed reliance on the judgment of Apex court in

Dr.Yashwantrao Bhaskarrao Deshmukh v. Raghunath Kisan

Saindane1.

5. On perusal of the record, it is seen O.S.No.39 of 1997

was filed by the petitioners seeking specific performance of

contract and for Perpetual Injunction. The said suit was dismissed

for default on 08.06.2001, as the petitioners failed to adduce

Civil Appeal No.6315 of 2021, dated 08.10.2021

evidence. The petitioners filed I.A.No.230 of 2001 for restoration

of said suit, but the same was also dismissed for default, as they

failed to pay process. Subsequently, the impugned application was

filed to condone the delay of (973) days in filing the petition to

restore I.A.No.230 of 2001.

6. The petitioners mainly contend that authorized person

of the first petitioner fell sick and she was admitted in Osmania

General Hospital and also filed medical certificates to that effect.

The respondents filed counter affidavit before the trial Court and

opposed the said application contending that medical certificates

are false and fabricated. Inspite of the same, the petitioners have

not taken any steps to examine the medical officers, who issued the

said medical certificates, to prove genuineness or otherwise of the

same.

7. I have carefully considered Dr.Yashwantrao Bhaskarrao

Deshmukh's case supra. The facts and circumstances of the said

case are different from the facts of this case. In the said case, there

was communication gap between the client and counsel. In such a

situation, lenient view has to be taken. In the instant case, the only

ground urged by the petitioners that due to ill-health of the

authorized person of the first petitioner, they could not pursue the

suit. But they failed to take steps to substantiate the said

contention with any reliable evidence, oral or documentary. Thus,

the trial Court has rightly taken a view that the petitioners failed to

show sufficient cause to condone the delay of (973) days and

dismissed the application. The impugned order, refusing to

condone the delay, does not suffer from any illegality or material

irregularity so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise

of revisional jurisdiction.

8. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this revision, shall stand

closed.

______________________________ JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY 15.11.2022 Nvl