Monday, 13, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Mohd. Khaleel vs M.K.M Shoukath
2024 Latest Caselaw 2732 Tel

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 2732 Tel
Judgement Date : 16 July, 2024

Telangana High Court

Mohd. Khaleel vs M.K.M Shoukath on 16 July, 2024

Author: P. Sree Sudha

Bench: P.Sree Sudha

     THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

          CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3726 of 2023

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order

dated 28.11.2023 passed in I.A.No.3158 of 2023 in

A.S.SR.No.14798 of 2023 by the learned Principal District and

Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

2. O.S.No.9 of 2015 is filed by respondents/plaintiffs for

eviction and mesne profits. The trial Court decreed the Suit.

Aggrieved by the order of the trial Court, the

petitioner/defendant filed A.S.SR.No.14798 of 2023 before the

first appellate Court. I.A.No.3158 of 2023 was filed by the

petitioner/defendant to condone the delay of 272 days in filing

the appeal. The trial Court considering the arguments and the

material on record, dismissed the application. Aggrieved, by

the order of the appellate Court, the petitioner herein filed the

present Civil Revision Petition.

3. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that petitioner

was affected with acute back pain and being a highly diabetic

patient, the doctors advised the petitioner to take bed rest. The

trial Court did not consider the medical certificate filed by the

petitioner. The petitioner has fair case to succeed as the suit is

filed for eviction of the petitioner herein from the suit schedule

property and by suppressing true and material facts and the

trial Court without appreciating the true facts passed the

judgment. Therefore, requested the Court to set aside the order

of the first appellate Court.

5. The trial Court considering the entire evidence on record

decreed the Suit in favour of respondents/plaintiffs directing

the petitioner/defendant to vacate the suit schedule property

and further directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,500/- per month

to respondents as mesne profits from September 2014 till the

petitioner/defendant evicts the suit schedule property and to

pay future interest @ 12% on Rs.32,5000/- within three

months from the date of decree and also directed to pay

monthly rent of Rs.6,500/- per month to respondents/plaintiffs

till the petitioner/defendant evicts the suit schedule property.

The petitioner intended to file an appeal and came up with

condone delay application. He simply stated that he was ill-

health and he could not file the appeal in time and further

stated that he has no legal knowledge but he engaged a counsel

in the trial Court and also he filed an appeal and engaged a

counsel in the appellate Court, as such his contention that he

has no legal knowledge cannot be considered. The trial Court

clearly stated that in the medical certificate produced by him,

the nature of illness and nature of treatment was not

mentioned and it was not mentioned where he is having serious

illness.

6. Admittedly, the suit for eviction was decreed and the

petitioner herein came up with delay application at a belated

stage and moreover suit was decreed on 14.12.2022. E.P.No.23

of 2023 is filed in March, 2023 and he also filed a vakalat and

he filed the appeal on 13.10.2023.

7. Learned counsel for respondents relied upon a decision

rendered by this Court in Allala Bhagavath Rao and

Garvandula Vijayalaxmi and Others 1 in which it was held

that the sufficient cause must be construed liberally without

adopting any pedantic approach and when the petitioner was

unable to move from the house due to ill-health it is a sufficient

ground to condone the delay.

2015 5 ALD 598

8. Petitioner herein could not prefer the appeal in time and

even if he is suffering with back pain, he can enquire about the

stage of the case through the phone. The reasons stated by the

petitioner for an abnormal delay of 272 days are neither

convincing nor satisfactory and the trial Court rightly dismissed

the application. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to

interfere with the order of the trial Court.

9. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed

confirming the order of the trial Court dated 28.11.2023 passed

in I.A.No.3158 of 2023 in A.S.SR.No.14798 of 2023. There

shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

closed.

_____________________ P. SREE SUDHA, J

DATE: 16.07.2024 CHS

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IDRC

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter