Mr. K. Manikantha vs K. Madhavi Latha And 7 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 1799 Tel

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

                  C.R.P.NO.383 OF 2023


Between:
Mr K.Manikantha
                                                  ... Petitioner
                             And

K.Madhavi Latha and others
                                                ... Respondents

       JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 25.04.2023


THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA



1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers    :     yes
   may be allowed to see the Judgment?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
   marked to Law Reporters/Journals?        :     yes

3. Whether Their Lordships wish to
   see the fair copy of the Judgment?       :     yes



                                        _________________
                                    SUREPALLI NANDA, J
                                                               SN,J
                                2




      THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

                    C.R.P.NO.383 OF 2023

%     25.04.2023

Between:


# Mr K.Manikantha
                                                ..... Petitioner
And


$ K.Madhavi Latha and others
                                             .....Respondents


< Gist:
> Head Note:



! Counsel for the Petitioners   : Mr Akula Shyam Sunder
^ Counsel for the Respondents: Mrs M.Sreenath




? Cases Referred:
                                                                     SN,J
                                    3




     THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

                       C.R.P.NO.383 OF 2023

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the

propriety and legality of the order dated 11.01.2023 in

I.A.No.136 of 2021 in O.S.No.20 of 2018 on the file of

the Principal District Judge at Jogulamba, Gadwal.

2. The petitioners/defendants filed I.A.No.136 of 2021,

under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking

condonation of delay of 661 days in filing the petition to set

aside the exparte decree passed against them. The plea of the

petitioners is that the suit was posted for filing their written

statement, but their counsel did not inform them about it and

so they could not file the written statement within time and

the Court consequently forfeited their right to file written

statement and on 27.08.2019, exparte decree was passed

and that they were residents of Bellary and their's is a big

family and the petitioners 2 to 4 are students preparing for

competitive examinations and that the first petitioner does

not know about the facts of their case and their counsel did

not inform them anything about their case.

SN,J

3. The respondents/plaintiffs filed counter denying the plea

taken by the petitioners and alleged that the petitioners had

suppressed material facts and that the delay is abnormal and

explanation given is not satisfactory and so there is no

sufficient cause shown by the petitioners to condone the delay

and therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. After considering the material on record vide the

impugned order dated 11.01.2023 in I.A.No.136 of 2021 in

O.S.No.20 of 2018 the Principal District Judge at Jogulamba,

Gadwal dismissed the petition. Being aggrieved by the said

order, it is only the 5th petitioner/defendant No.5 had filed the

present C.R.P. by arraying the other petitioners as

respondents 5 to 8 in the present revision petition.

5. Heard both the learned counsel on record and also

perused the record.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

6. The cause shown for condoning the delay of 661

days is that their counsel had not informed them that

written statement had to be filed and that subsequent

to 05.07.2019 on which date their right to file written SN,J

statement was forfeited, there was no intimation by the

counsel about the stage of the suit. The petitioners

apparently blamed their counsel for their failure to file

their written statement within time and for passing of

the exparte decree against them. That stand taken by

the petitioners is quite unacceptable for the simple

reason that it is the petitioners, that should have gone

to their counsel to know the progress of the suit and to

give instructions for filing the written statement well

within time. That apart, in the civil revision petition,

the cause shown for condoning the delay is quite contra

to what is stated in the affidavit filed by the first

petitioner in the lower Court.

7. In para 8 of the revision petition it is stated that

the petitioner i.e. petitioner No.5/defendant No.5,

came to know about the exparte decree in the month of

March,2020 and after that he along with other

petitioners could not meet their counsel since there

was COVID-19, pandemic from March, 2020, till August,

2021 and that after the lockdown was lifted he

(revision petitioner) approached his counsel and filed SN,J

the petition before the lower Court. This version given

by the revision petitioner does not find place in the

affidavit filed by the 1st petitioner before the lower

Court. This Court opines that inconsistency reflects the

falsity of the plea taken for condonation of the delay of

661 days.

8. A perusal of the impugned order dated 11.01.2023

in I.A.No.136 of 2021 in O.S.No.20 of 2018 on the file of

the Principal District Judge at Jogulamba, Gadwal

shows that the lower Court after appreciating the rival

contentions came to a right conclusion in rejecting the

plea of the petitioners for condonation of the delay.

9. The impugned order dated 11.01.2023 in

I.A.No.136 of 2021 in O.S.No.20 of 2018 on the file of

the Principal District Judge at Jogulamba, Gadwal does

not suffer from any legal infirmity nor is there any

irregularity or illegality in passing the order.

10. In view of the above discussion, the present civil

revision petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no

order as to costs.

SN,J

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand

dismissed.

_________________ SUREPALLI NANDA, J Date: 25.04.2023 Note : L.R. copy to be marked b/o Kvrm