T B Ramulu, Nalgonda Dist 14 Others vs Comprehensive Rural Opn Socy, ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 5967 Tel

   HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

           CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1713 of 2016
ORDER:

This revision is directed to set aside the order dated

16.03.2016 in I.A.No.619 of 2014 in unregistered Appeal suit of

the year 2014 on the file of Principal District Judge's Court,

Nalgonda.

2. The petitioners are the plaintiffs filed suit in

O.S.No.21 of 2007 against the respondents/defendants, before the

Junior Civil Judge's Court at Ramannapet, for perpetual Injunction

restraining them from interfering with their peaceful possession

and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. While so, the trial

Court dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 08.11.2013.

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed appeal along with

I.A.No.619 of 2014 to condone the delay of (152) days in

preferring the said appeal. The Principal District Judge, Nalgonda

dismissed the said application vide impugned order dated

16.03.2016. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is

preferred.

3. A perusal of the record would disclose that the

petitioners ought to have preferred the appeal against the impugned

judgment on or before 07.12.2013, but they could not prefer the

same. The petitioners contended that first petitioner is looking

after the case on behalf of petitioner Nos. 2 to 8 and 10 to 14 and

also on behalf of petitioner Nos.15 and 16, who are the legal

representatives of deceased-petitioner No.9. The petitioners in the

affidavit filed along with the application to condone the delay of

(152) days stated that the first petitioner, who was aged about 61

years, fell sick and was suffering from old age ailments. The

delay was neither intentional nor deliberate. Admittedly, the

explanation is given by the first petitioner in his affidavit is not

satisfactory. The petitioners have not filed any scrap of paper in

proof of ill-ness of the first petitioner. There is no explanation

offered by the petitioners as to why other petitioners have not taken

steps in preferring the appeal, if the first petitioner fell ill.

4. It is settled principle of law that while dealing with

application under Section 5 of the Act, the Courts should not

approach pedantic and hyper technical approach. The Court has to

examine as to whether there is sufficient cause to explain the delay

and whether said cause is genuine or bonafidees of the party.

5. In the present case, though the petitioners sought to contend

that delay occurred due ill-ness of the first petitioner, it appears

there are no bonafidees on the part of the petitioners and it is not

possible to accept the same as sufficient cause without any

evidence. Therefore, while dismissing the application, the trial

Court rightly took a view that the petitioners failed to show

sufficient cause to condone the delay of (152) days. Therefore, the

impugned order, which is passed on due consideration of the

material on record and in proper exercise of discretion, does not

call for any interference.

6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if

any, pending shall stand closed.

________________________ A.SANTHOSH REDDY, J 17.11.2022 Nvl