Telangana High Court
K. Amarnath Reddy vs P. Raghavender Reddy on 30 October, 2024
Author: P.Sam Koshy
Bench: P.Sam Koshy
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3199 of 2024
ORDER:
The present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner challenging the
order dated 07.03.2024 in I.A.No.656 of 2023 in O.S.No.934 of 2019
passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Metropolitan
Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar.
2. Heard Mr. M.Phanindra Bhargav, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
3. Vide the impugned order, the Trial Court had rejected the
aforesaid I.A.No.656 of 2023 which was a petition filed under Section
5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking for condonation of delay of 674
day in filing of the petition under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC seeking
setting aside the ex-parte judgment.
4. The facts of the case are that the respondent had filed a Suit
for recovery of money against the petitioner for an amount of
Rs.4,80,000/- along with interest at the rate of 2% per month from
12.12.2016 totaling to Rs.8,16,000/-. The petitioner entered
appearance before the Trial Court on receipt of summons and filed
the Vakalath and got the lawyer engaged and thereafter had been
seeking time for filing written statement. Since the written statement
was not filed within the stipulated period, one more opportunity for
filing the written statement was granted by imposing costs, the
petitioner did not file the written statement, nor was he contesting
the case. Therefore, the Trial Court proceeded ex-parte against the
petitioner and an ex-parte judgment was passed on 17.01.2022.
5. Subsequently, I.A.No.296 of 2023 was filed seeking setting
aside of the ex-parte judgment. Since, the said I.A. under Order IX
Rule 13 of CPC was not filed supported with any condonation of
delay petition, therefore the same stood dismissed by the Trial Court.
The petitioner filed yet another Order IX Rule 13 petition along with
a fresh petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking
for condonation of delay which was numbered as I.A.No.656 of 2023.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Trial
Court for want of sufficient plausible explanation with reasonable
proof and evidence to support the contentions, found the reasons
seeking condonation of delay to be too formal and rejected the same
leading to filing of the present Revision Petition.
7. What is necessary to be appreciated at this juncture is whether
there is in fact sufficient materials made available by the petitioner
in seeking condonation of delay?
8. Before we look into the contents of the Section 5 petition, it is
necessary to appreciate that it is by now a well settled proposition of
law that a person seeking condonation of delay has to give
reasonable justification and a plausible explanation justifying the
reasons of his absence before the Court on the date of hearing. This
proposition of law has been laid down by a catena of decisions of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court as also practically by every High Court in the
country.
9. With this proposition of law, when we look into the contents of
Section 5 petition filed along with I.A.No.656 of 2023 which for ready
reference are reproduced herein under, viz.,
"For the reasons stated in the accompanying Affidavit, it
is therefore prayed to this Hon'ble Court may be pleased
to CONDONE the delay of (674) days in filing the petition
Section 5 Indian Limitation act -1963 R/w section 151 of
c.p.c to set aside the exparte judgment and decree dated:
17-01-2022 by permitting the petitioner to file Written
Statement and defend his case and to pass such other
order or orders as the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper
in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of
Justice."
A plain reading of the aforesaid contents of Section 5 petition
would show that the said application is as vague as it can be with no
justification, explanation or reasons of any nature so reflected so as
to genuinely appreciate the hardship that was prevailing for the
petitioner; firstly in not filing the written statement in time, secondly
for not promptly pursuing the application seeking setting aside of ex-
parte judgment and decree, and thirdly, whether the explanation so
provided was bona fide, genuine and was a sufficient explanation.
The Section 5 petition since did not disclose any merits whatsoever
so far as seeking condonation of 675 days is concerned, the finding
given by the Trial Court cannot be found fault with at all.
10. Now even if we look at the affidavit filed along with I.A.No.656
of 2023 seeking setting aside of ex-parte judgment, the same also
does not spell out any plausible explanation. On the other hand, if
we look at the affidavit, it gives a clear admission on the part of the
petitioner that summons at the first instance was duly served; the
petitioner had taken steps in entering appearance and executed a
Vakalath in favour of the Counsel. The Counsel repeatedly appeared
before the Trial Court and sought time to file written statement.
Thereafter, the proceedings were left abruptly by him till I.A.No.296
of 2023 was filed seeking setting aside of the ex-parte judgment.
11. The only ground which the petitioner is sought to have taken or
that which stands revealed is that perhaps the respondent had made
some oral assurance of his withdrawing the Suit and not to pursue it
any further as the liability already stood discharged. This ground
raised by the petitioner is hard to accept for the reason that they
were in fact represented by a Counsel. There was time when cost was
imposed upon the petitioner for not filing the written statement and
thereafter there has been no representation. Even if there was an
undertaking between the plaintiff and the defendant, it should had
been reflected in the order sheet and the Suit should not had been
pressed further by the respondent. The lawyer engaged by the
petitioner so also the petitioner himself should have been vigilant
enough to ensure that the Suit stands withdrawn as was the belief of
the petitioner. But the two petitions i.e. I.A.No.656 of 2023 and
I.A.No.296 of 2023 both being bereft of merits without any reasons /
explanation or justification for having approached the competent
Court so belatedly with inordinate delay, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the Trial Court in the given circumstances
had no other option but to dismiss the applications without any
further prolongation of the matter.
12. As a consequence, this Court also does not find any merits
warranting interference to the order dated 07.03.2024 in I.A.No.656
of 2023 in O.S.No.934 of 2019 passed by the Principal Junior Civil
Judge-cum-Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.
Nagar. The present Revision Petition therefore deserves to be and is
accordingly dismissed. No costs.
13. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand
closed.
__________________
P.SAM KOSHY, J
Date: 30.10.2024
GSD
