Venkata Narsimha Raju vs G. Prasada Rao
2024 Latest Caselaw 4156 Tel

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 4156 Tel
Judgement Date : 22 October, 2024

Telangana High Court

Venkata Narsimha Raju vs G. Prasada Rao on 22 October, 2024

         THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE K.SUJANA

      CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2676 OF 2023

O R D E R:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by defendant No.2

against the order dated 24.07.2023 in I.A.No.503 of 2022 in

O.S.No.54 of 2021 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge-Cum-

Assistant Sessions Judge, Sangareddy.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties

will be referred as per their array before the trial Court

3. The facts of the case are that the

plaintiff/respondent No.1 filed the suit against defendant

No.1 for specific performance of Agreement of sale in respect

of the suit schedule property i.e., plot bearing No.647

admeasuring 267 sq.yards in Survey No.127 situated at

Chakaripuri colony, Ameenpur village and mandal,

Sangareddy District. After the demise of defendant No.1, the

revision petitioners came on record as defendant Nos. 2 and

3 being the legal heirs of the deceased defendant No. 1. As

they did not participate in the proceedings, the trial Court

decreed the suit ex parte on 18.11.2021. Now, by way of

impugned application, the revision petitioners sought to

condone the delay of 144 days in filing the application to set

aside the ex parte decree dated 18.11.2021. It is their case

SKS,J

that they could not appear before the trial Court on

18.11.2021 due to incorrect address. It is stated that the

defendants have not received any notices in the suit and

they could not represent the matter in the further

proceedings resulting into passing of ex parte orders on

18.11.2021. Thus, there is a delay of 144 days in filing the

petition to set aside the judgment and decree dated

18.11.2021 which is neither wanton nor willful but for the

reasons stated above. Further, defendant Nos.2 and 3 came

to know about the suit only when they made enquired about

the case. Soon after obtaining the relevant papers of suit

proceedings, defendant Nos.2 and 3 filed application to

condone the delay of 144 days in filing the petition to set

aside the ex parte decree dated 18.11.2021.

4. By the impugned order, the petition filed by

defendant Nos. 2 and 3 under Section 5 of the Limitation

Act was dismissed rejecting the request for condoning the

delay of 144 days in filing the application to set aside the ex

parte decree, dated 18.11.2021.

5. Heard Sri Sai Reddy Ravindar Reddy, learned

counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant No.2. Though

SKS,J

notice was served none appeared on behalf of respondent

No.1/plaintiff. Perused the material available on record.

6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended

that since defendant No.1 suffered with cancer, he could not

pursue the case regularly during his life time. He further

contended that the plaintiff has intentionally furnished the

wrong address of the deceased defendant No. 1 and his LRs

i.e., defendant Nos. 2 and 3. He also contended that the

technicalities should not have interpreted the petition and

therefore, prayed the Court to allow the revision petition.

7. The Section 5 of Limitation Act reads as under :

"Section 5 in The Limitation Act, 1963:

5 Extension of prescribed period in certain cases. --

Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), may be admitted after the prescribed period, if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period. Explanation.-- The fact that the appellant or the applicant was misled by any order, practice or judgment of the High Court in ascertaining or computing the prescribed period may be sufficient cause within the meaning of this section"

A plain reading of the above makes it abundantly

clear that if the revision petitioner satisfies the Court with

SKS,J

sufficient cause for not filing the petition within the

stipulated period, then the said petition can be allowed.

8. It is pertinent to note that the trial Court passed ex

parte decree on 18.11.2021 against defendant Nos. 2 and 3

who were the legal heirs of the deceased defendant No. 1

and further they came to know about the suit only when

they enquired about the case before the trial Court.

Immediately, they obtained the relevant papers of the suit

proceedings and filed application to condone the delay of

144 days in filing the petition to set aside ex parte decree

dated 18.11.2021. It is also stated that defendant Nos.2 and

3 have not received any notices in the suit. Furthermore,

the relief sought in the suit is for specific performance of

Agreement of sale. Hence, this Court is inclined to give an