Telangana High Court

Edulakanti Swroopa vs Uppari Chandraiah And 16 Others on 10 April, 2025

Author: G.Radha Rani

Bench: G.Radha Rani

       THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI

            CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2823 of 2019

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the

order dated 15.04.2019 passed in I.A.No.3 of 2018 in O.S.No.1148 of 2008 by

the learned X Additional Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar.

2. The petitioner is the plaintiff. She filed the suit for partition and separate

possession of suit schedule property vide O.S.No.1148 of 2008 against

defendants 1 to 5. The defendant No.1 is the father of the plaintiff. The

defendants 2 to 4 are brothers and sister of the plaintiff. The defendant No.5

was alleged to be in possession of suit schedule A & B properties. When the

matter was posted for trial, due to the failure of the plaintiff to adduce evidence,

the suit was dismissed for default on 19.12.2014. The plaintiff subsequently

filed a petition for restoration of the suit along with a condone delay application

to condone the delay of 1137 days in filing the application to set aside the

dismissal order and to restore the suit to its original stage.

3. In support of the petition, the plaintiff filed an affidavit stating that as she

suffered with jaundice and was taking medicines and was completely bed

ridden, she could not contact her counsel nor appear before the Court. She was

Dr.GRR, J crp_2823_2019

under the impression that her counsel was pursuing the matter. When she

recently contacted her counsel, she came to know that the suit was dismissed on

08.04.2014 for default due to non-representation, as such, filed the application

to restore the suit by setting aside the dismissal order.

4. The suit was initially filed against defendants 1 to 5. But subsequently,

the defendants 6 to 17 were also added. The respondents 1 to 4, 6 to 9 and 12 to

17 remained ex-parte.

5. The respondents 5, 10 and 11 filed their counter opposing the petition

contending that after a long gap of 1137 days, the petitioner filed the application

with change of counsel, which would not cover her laches. Several changes

took place in the meanwhile and prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. The learned VIII Additional District Judge, FAC of X Additional District

Judge, Rangareddy District passed the impugned common order dismissing

I.A.Nos.3 & 4 of 2018 filed for condoning the delay and to set aside the ex-

parte order dated 19.12.2014 observing that the petitioner - plaintiff failed to

adduce evidence on several opportunities provided to her on 28.11.2014,

05.12.2014 and 12.12.2014. A conditional order was passed on 12.12.2014, but

as she failed to adduce evidence, the suit was dismissed for default. No

reasonable explanation was given by the petitioner for such huge delay. There

Dr.GRR, J crp_2823_2019

was demonstrable laxity exhibited by the petitioner at every stage of the

proceeding and that the petitioner failed to prosecute the matter diligently.

7. Aggrieved by the said dismissal, the petitioner - plaintiff preferred this

revision.

8. Heard Sri E.Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri

M.V.Pratap Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 and Sri P.Balaji

Verma, learned counsel for the respondent No.7.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was a

household lady. She filed the partition suit against her ancestral property. She

suffered with ill-health due to jaundice and could not lead the evidence when

the case was called for. Due to the dismissal of the restoration petition, the time

and efforts put by her in prosecuting the suit would be in vain and she could not

afford to file a fresh suit due to her financial condition. The trial court ought to

have liberally allowed the petition and relied upon the judgments of this Court

in C.R.P.No.710 of 2014 dated 30.08.2024 and of the Division Bench judgment

of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi in Smt.P.Chandrakala v.

M/s.Karnataka State Industrial and Development Corporation Limited

and Others1.

2024 (5) ALT 533 (DB)

Dr.GRR, J crp_2823_2019

10. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that respondents 5 and 17

were subsequent purchasers. The respondents 1 to 4 remained ex-parte. The

suit was of the year 2008 and it was dismissed for default on 19.12.2014. The

CRP was also of the year 2019, but the petitioner had not evinced any interest to

prosecute the suit or either the CRP. No material was filed by the petitioner in

proof of her illness and no plausible reason was given by her to show as to why

she could not contact her counsel and prayed to dismiss the CRP.

11. As seen from the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the

application in I.A.No.3 of 2018, she stated that she suffered with jaundice and

was completely bed ridden and could not contact her counsel. But she had not

filed any documentary evidence in proof of her illness. Learned counsel for the

revision petitioner contended that the petitioner underwent Ayurvedic treatment

in her village and no records were maintained, as such, records could not be

filed under the said circumstances. But she had not even given the name of

Ayurvedic doctor, under whom, she had taken treatment nor stated the period of

her treatment from which period to which period, she suffered with the said

illness. Her evidence that she was completely bed ridden and was not in a

position to contact her counsel for a period of four years from 08.04.2014 to the

date of filing her application on 22.01.2018, could not be believed.

Dr.GRR, J crp_2823_2019

12. In the absence of any convincing explanation provided by her, the delay

could not be condoned. Though in several cases, it was stated that the

expression "sufficient cause" should be given a liberal interpretation to ensure

that substantial justice was done, it was only so long as negligence, inaction or

lack of bonafides, could not be imputed to the party concerned.

13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Baswaraj and Another v. Special Land

Acquisition Officer2, held that:

"12. It is a settled legal proposition that law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The Court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. "A result flowing from a statutory provision is never an evil. A Court has no power to ignore that provision to relieve what it considers a distress resulting from its operation." The statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the Court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same. The legal maxim "dura lex sed lex"

which means "the law is hard but it is the law", stands attracted in such a situation. It has consistently been held that, "inconvenience is not" a decisive factor to be considered while interpreting a statute.

13. The Statute of Limitation is founded on public policy, its aim being to secure peace in the community, to suppress fraud and perjury, to quicken diligence and to prevent oppression. It seeks to bury all acts of the past which have not been agitated unexplainably and have from lapse of time become stale.

2013 (14) SCC 81

Dr.GRR, J crp_2823_2019

According to Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. 24, p. 181:

"330. Policy of Limitation Acts. The courts have expressed at least three differing reasons supporting the existence of statutes of limitations namely, (1) that long dormant claims have more of cruelty than justice in them, (2) that a defendant might have lost the evidence to disprove a stale claim, and (3) that persons with good causes of actions should pursue them with reasonable diligence".

An unlimited limitation would lead to a sense of insecurity and uncertainty, and therefore, limitation prevents disturbance or deprivation of what may have been acquired in equity and justice by long enjoyment or what may have been lost by a party's own inaction, negligence' or laches.

(See: Popat and Kotecha Property v. State Bank of India Staff Assn.[(2005) 7 SCC 510]; Rajendar Singh & Ors. v. Santa Singh & Ors., [AIR 1973 SC 2537]; and Pundlik Jalam Patil v. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project [(2008) 17 SCC 448].

14. In P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka [AIR 2002 SC 1856], this Court held that judicially engrafting principles of limitation amounts to legislating and would fly in the face of law laid down by the Constitution Bench in A. R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak [AIR 1992 SC 1701].

15. The law on the issue can be summarized to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the "sufficient cause" which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bonafide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this court in regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on

Dr.GRR, J crp_2823_2019

time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature."

14. As each case is to be judged basing on the factual situations surrounding

it and the petitioner was unable to show any sufficient cause to condone the

inordinate delay of 1137 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex-parte

decree and was unable to show that she had acted diligently or that she was

completely bed ridden during the entire period of four years, this Court does not

find any error in the order of the trial court in dismissing the petition filed by

her in I.A.No.3 of 2018.

15. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the order

passed by the learned X Additional Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar in

I.A.No.3 of 2018 in O.S.No.1148 of 2008. No order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending in this petition, if any,

shall stand closed.