Telangana High Court
Ramulamma vs Mir Amir Ali on 27 September, 2022
Bench: P.Sree Sudha
HON'BLE Smt. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2117 of 2021
ORDER
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 21.01.2021 passed in
I.A.No.72 of 2020 in O.S.No.862 of 2018 on the file of the
learned IX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad,
whereby the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act
filed by the petitioners-defendants is dismissed.
2. The petitioners herein filed an application under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 411
days in filing the written statement. She is the first defendant
in the suit filed for perpetual injunction in O.S.No.862 of
2018. She asserted that she went to USA on 11.07.2019 and
returned to India on 13.11.2019. When she enquired about
the suit, her counsel informed that the suit was decreed
ex parte on 12.10.2018. When the suit is coming up for filing
the written statement of the defendants on 20.08.2018, the
defendants could not file it and as such the suit was decreed
ex parte.
3. Perusal of the record shows that the defendant was set
ex parte even prior to her visit to USA. According to her she
went to USA in the month of July, 2019 and returned to India
in the month of November, 2019 and whereas the suit is
posted for filing of written statement in the month of August,
2018 and as the defendant failed to file the same, the suit
was decreed ex parte on 12.10.2018 itself. Therefore, the
reasons stated by the defendant that she could not file the
written statement as she went to USA is not tenable. The
defendant is a landlady and the suit is filed by the plaintiff-
tenant praying the Court to grant injunction restraining the
defendants from interfering or entering or dispossessing him
from the suit schedule property without following due process
of law. It is on record that the defendant herein also filed
another suit viz., O.S.No.1623 of 2018 on the file of the
learned Senior Civil Judge against the plaintiff herein seeking
for eviction from the plaint schedule property and arrears of
rent and it is still pending.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners
would submit that in view of the pendency of the revision, the
respondent is not paying arrears of rent. Learned counsel
also submitted that the concept of explaining the delay of
each day was diluted in view of the judgment of the Apex
Court and thus the delay in filing petition is to be condoned
by giving opportunity for the petitioners herein to contest the
matter.
5. It is for the petitioner herein to furnish sufficient reason
for condoning the delay. The reasons stated by the petitioners
herein are no way connected to non-filing of written
statement since she is very much available in India during
that point of time. The petitioners should have instructed the
counsel properly and pursued the litigation with due
diligence, but she failed to do so. Moreover, since the
petitioner has already filed the suit seeking eviction against
the respondent herein, no prejudice would be caused if she is
set ex parte in the suit.
6. The trial Court after considering the arguments
advanced by both the counsel and also the case law cited
before it, dismissed the application. The trial Court further
observed that the second petitioner herein is no other than
the son of the first petitioner and he is very much present in
India, but he could not pursue the litigation for the reasons
best known to him. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in
the order under challenge.
7. In the result the civil revision petition is devoid of merit
and is accordingly dismissed confirming the order under
challenge.
8. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this revision
shall also stand dismissed in the light of this final order.
____________________
P.SREE SUDHA, J.
27th SEPTEMBER, 2022.
PGS
