Telangana High Court

Smt. J. Vasantha vs Syed Kareemuddin on 15 April, 2025

Author: G.Radha Rani

Bench: G.Radha Rani

      THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI

            CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.953 of 2021

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner - defendant No.4

aggrieved by the order dated 30.04.2021 passed in I.A.No.490 of 2019 in

O.S.No.362 of 2013 by the learned I Additional District Judge, Rangareddy

District at L.B.Nagar.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondents - plaintiffs filed a

suit for cancellation of registered sale deed document No.4161 of 2001 dated

08.06.2001 and to declare the registered sale deed document No.7785 of 2005

dated 13.07.2005 as null and void in respect of the land in Survey No.586 to an

extent of Ac.3-21 guntas situated at Nadergul Revenue Village, Saroornagar

Mandal, Rangareddy District.

3. The case of the plaintiff was that he intended to sell the suit schedule

property to meet his urgent financial necessities. The defendant No.1 offered

and agreed to purchase the same for a total sale consideration of Rs10,05,000/-

and they entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on 08.06.2001. The

defendant No.1 paid Rs.7,00,000/- and issued a post dated cheque for

Rs.3,05,000/-. On the same day, the defendant No.1 got executed a registered

Dr.GRR, J crp_953_2021

sale deed in favor of defendant No.2 (wife of defendant No.1). In view of a suit

filed by one of his family members vide O.S.No.783 of 2001 in the Court of

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar for perpetual

injunction in respect of the suit schedule property, the defendant No.1

demanded the plaintiff for refund of the sale consideration. Due to his coercion,

the plaintiff repaid Rs.5,00,000/- to the defendant No.1 on 27.02.2007. The

defendant No.1 executed a receipt, but however in the receipt mentioned the

same as hand loan. The defendant No.1 executed an undertaking on 05.02.2010

that on receipt of the balance amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, he would execute a deed

of cancellation of registered sale deed. The plaintiff tendered Rs.2,00,000/- to

defendants 1 and 2 and asked them to execute the registered deed of

cancellation, but they denied the same. The plaintiff further averred that

defendant No.1 got executed a registered sale deed dated 13.07.2005 through

defendant No.2 in favor of defendants 3 to 5, as such, filed the suit seeking the

above reliefs.

4. The defendants 1 to 5 remained ex-parte.

5. An ex-parte decree was passed on 25.03.2019 cancelling the registered

sale deed dated 08.06.2001 and declaring the registered sale deed dated

13.07.2005 as null and void. Permanent injunction was also granted restraining

the defendants from alienating the suit schedule property to third parties.

Dr.GRR, J crp_953_2021

Subsequently, the defendant No.4 filed a petition under Order IX Rule 13 read

with Section 151 of CPC to set aside the ex-parte decree passed in O.S.No.362

of 2013 on 19.07.2019. As there was a delay of 85 days in filing the application

for setting aside the ex-parte decree, the defendant No.4 filed I.A.No.490 of

2019 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the said delay.

6. In the affidavit filed along with the application, the defendant No.4

contended that the defendants 1 and 2 had executed a registered sale deed dated

13.07.2005 and delivered the physical possession of the suit schedule property

to her and she was in possession and enjoyment of the same since then. She had

converted the said property from agriculture to non-agriculture use and obtained

a lay out from the Gram Panchayat by laying the roads, etc., and alienated the

plots in favor of various purchasers and some of the plot owners had also

constructed compound wall to protect the same from encroachers. Having

knowledge of the same, the plaintiff with a malafide intention, filed the above

suit for cancellation of the registered sale deeds only with a view to extract

money in view of hike in prices in and over the suit schedule property. As on

the date of filing of the suit, the entire suit schedule property was alienated by

laying plots through registered sale deeds and the purchasers were in peaceful

possession and enjoyment of the same. She further stated that due to ill-health,

she could not contact her counsel to file a petition to set aside the ex-parte

Dr.GRR, J crp_953_2021

decree and if the petition was not allowed, she would be put to great and

irreparable loss and injury.

7. The respondents - plaintiffs filed counter submitting that the sole plaintiff

died on 21.09.2016 and his legal representatives were brought on record.

Summons were served on the defendants 3 and 4 in the suit way back on

26.07.2013 and also in I.A.No.124 of 2017 in the LR application. The

petitioner - defendant No.4 engaged a lawyer and filed vakalat, but she failed to

file her written statement or counters in I.A.s. None appeared before the Court

on her behalf. No diligence was shown by the petitioner in prosecuting the

case. Nearly after six years, she filed the petition to set aside the judgment and

decree dated 25.03.2019. As the judgment was passed on merits, the only

remedy available for the petitioner was to file an appeal. The trial court has

given ample opportunity to the petitioner - defendant No.4, but she failed to

properly explain the delay and as to what prevented her from filing application

in time and prayed to dismiss the petition.

8. Considering the contentions of both the learned counsel appearing before

it, the trial court passed an order dismissing the application.

9. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the same, the petitioner - defendant No.4

preferred this revision.

Dr.GRR, J crp_953_2021

10. Heard Sri Jelli Kanakaiah, learned counsel representing Sri Venkata

Rangadas Kanuri, learned counsel for the petitioner - defendant No.4 on record

and Sri G.M.Mohiuddin, learned counsel representing Sri A.Keshava Reddy,

learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 8 - plaintiffs on record.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was a delay of

only 85 days in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte decree dated

25.03.2019. The petitioner in her affidavit had stated that third party rights

were crept in, as she alienated the plots to various purchasers and constructions

were also made therein. The plaintiff filed the suit for cancellation of the

registered sale deed document No.4161 of 2001 dated 08.06.2001 and to declare

that the registered sale deed document No.7785 of 2005 dated 13.07.2005 as

null and void in the year 2013. Admittedly, the suit for cancellation of

registered document could be filed only within three years, but filed after the

period of limitation. The trial court without considering all these aspects passed

the ex-parte judgment and decree as well as dismissed the application filed by

the petitioner for condoning the delay. The petitioner suffered gynecology

problem. If an opportunity was given to her to defend her case by filing written

statement, no prejudice would be caused to the respondents - plaintiffs and

Dr.GRR, J crp_953_2021

relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Inder Singh v. The

State of Madhya Pradesh 1.

12. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand contended that the

revision petitioner - defendant No.4 had not shown any sufficient cause or

reason for not filing the written statement. She had not participated in the trial.

Only after passing of judgment and decree in O.S.No.362 of 2013, she came up

with the present petition malafidely to set aside the ex-parte decree. The said

petitions were not maintainable. Court notices were duly served on all the

defendants. The petitioner - defendant No.4 also engaged a lawyer and filed

vakalat, but failed to file her written statement or counters in the I.A.s. The

lower court had given ample opportunity to the petitioner - defendant No.4.

The petitioner had not properly explained the delay and not filed any document

in support of her illness. Only to drag the litigation, she filed the application.

The trial court on considering all the aspects, dismissed the petition filed by her.

There was no error in the order of the trial court to set aside the same and

prayed to dismiss the revision petition.

13. Perused the record.

14. As seen from the record, summons were served on the petitioner -

defendant No.4 and a vakalat was filed on her behalf way back on 26.07.2013.

Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6145 of 2024, dated 21.03.2025

Dr.GRR, J crp_953_2021

Ample opportunity was given to her to file her written statement, but she failed

to file the same, as such she was set ex-parte on 29.04.2014 and the matter was

proceeded further. No reason was given by the petitioner in her affidavit as to

why she kept quiet without filing the written statement and without filing an

application to set aside the ex-parte order passed against her on 29.04.2014.

Only after passing the judgment and decree on 25.03.2019, she filed the present

application, which would disclose the conduct of the petitioner that she was

watching the proceedings but not prosecuting the matter. Only after the decree

was passed cancelling the registered sale deeds, she filed the present petition.

No reasons were given by the petitioner for the said inordinate delay for keeping

quiet for such a long period from 29.04.2014 to 19.07.2019. The petitioner was

calculating the delay as 85 days from the date of passing of the judgment and

decree till the date of filing the application on 19.07.2019. She could have

stated the same reasons given by her about converting the land from agriculture

to non-agriculture use and its conversion into plots and alienating the same in

favor of various purchasers, by filing written statement. Her keeping quite

would raise a suspicion over her conduct that it was not bonafide. No plausible

explanation was given by her to condone the delay except stating that she

suffered with ill-health. She had not given any details of her ill-health, as to

what was she suffering with or from which period to which period and why she

was unable to contact her counsel.

Dr.GRR, J crp_953_2021

15. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in Inder Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (cited 1

supra) on the aspect that:

"14. There can be no quarrel on the settled principle of law that delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, but a major aspect which has to be kept in mind is that, if in a particular case, the merits have to be examined, it should not be scuttled merely on the basis of limitation."

16. In the said case itself, several other earlier cases of the Hon'ble Apex

Court were also referred to wherein in Pathapati Subba Reddy v. Special

Deputy Collector [2024 SCC OnLine SC 513], it was held that:

"Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence."

17. As each case will depend on its own facts and the discretion of the Court

has to be exercised basing upon the facts of the case before it and the petitioner

must able to show sufficient cause for condoning the delay and must show that

he / she had not acted in negligent manner or failed to exercise due diligence,

the facts of the above case cannot be considered as binding on the present case,

as the facts vary from case to case.

Dr.GRR, J crp_953_2021

18. 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.

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

2013 (14) SCC 81

Dr.GRR, J crp_953_2021

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 PundlikJalamPatil v. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project [(2008) 17 SCC 448].

14. In P. RamachandraRao 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 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."

19. As the petitioner failed to give any plausible explanation for the delay

caused in filing the petition to set aside the judgment and decree in O.S.No.362

of 2013 dated 25.03.2019 and failed to give any details of her ill-health or able

to show sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the petition to set

Dr.GRR, J crp_953_2021

aside the ex-parte order passed against her on 29.04.2014 and as to why she

kept quiet for all these years without contesting the matter, this Court does not

find any error in the order passed by the trial court in dismissing the application

filed by her to set aside the judgment and decree in O.S.No.362 of 2013 dated

25.03.2019.

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

passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Rangareddy District at