Saturday, 09, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Sri N.Narsingh vs Sri P.Sriramulu
2025 Latest Caselaw 699 Tel

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 699 Tel
Judgement Date : 1 August, 2025

Telangana High Court

Sri N.Narsingh vs Sri P.Sriramulu on 1 August, 2025

Author: P. Sam Koshy
Bench: P. Sam Koshy
                                 Page 1 of 4


          THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY

               Civil Revision Petition No.2538 of 2025

ORDER :

The instant Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the

petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the

order dated 04.07.2025 in I.A.No.5352 of 2024 in A.S.(S.R.)No.19772

of 2024 passed by the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad (for

short, 'the impugned order').

2. Heard Mr.Parsa Ananth Nageswar Rao, learned counsel for the

petitioners; and Mr. Madiraju Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the

respondent.

3. Vide the impugned order, the Trial Court dismissed the above

I.A.

4. The petitioners herein are defendants in the above suit, and the

respondent herein is plaintiff in the above suit.

5. Pending suit, the petitioners have filed the above I.A. under

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 praying the Trial Court to

condone the delay of (373) days in filing the above appeal against the

judgment and decree dated 12.07.2023 in O.S.No.781 of 2017 passed

by the V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that though the

judgment and decree in O.S.No.781 of 2017 was passed on

12.07.2023, on account of ill-health of petitioner No.2 and petitioner

No.1 being the only son is taking care of petitioner No.2, they could

not prefer an appeal within the prescribed time limit. As such, they

have sought for condonation of delay of (373) days in filing the appeal.

He further contended that since petitioner No.1 was taking care of

petitioner No.2 and in addition he was also in a private employment,

therefore under the compelling situation he could not get time to get

the appeal filed on time; and in the process, a delay of (373) days

occurred and therefore the above application is filed seeking for

condonation of delay of (373) days.

7. In the course of deliberations, it has been found that the decree-

holder, i.e., the respondent herein had in fact initiated an execution

proceedings vide E.P.No.8 of 2024 in O.S.No.781 of 2017 under Order

XXI Rule 11 of Civil Procedure code, 1908, in which the petitioners

herein had entered appearance way back on 19.02.2024 and dragged

on the proceedings in the said E.P. on the ground of taking time for

filing of counter for six months; and finally on 30.07.2024, when the

petitioners failed to file their counter-affidavit, their right to file

counter-affidavit in the said E.P. was forfeited, and on 06.08.2024, a

warrant was also issued against the petitioners by the execution court.

The presence of the petitioners before the Execution Court and

engaging a lawyer and continuously taking time for more than six

months falsifies the reasons and explanations given by the petitioners

seeking for condonation of delay of (373) days in filing the appeal.

Moreover, the appeal has been filed much after the warrant was

issued on 06.08.2024 by the Execution Court, and the I.A., viz.,

I.A.No.5352 of 2024 in A.S.S.R.No.19772 of 2024 was filed on

27.08.2024. The fact that proceedings in the Execution Court and the

petitioners seeking time to file counter-affidavit in the execution

proceedings and the appeal before the First Appellate Court being filed

after attachment orders have been passed are all missing from the

above I.A. that is filed for condoning the delay of (373) days in filing

the appeal.

8. In view of the above aforesaid factual matrix of the case running

against the petitioners, this Court is of the considered opinion that

petitioners herein have not been able to make out a strong case calling

for interference to the impugned order passed by the Trial Court.

Therefore, the Trial Court had rightly rejected the above I.A. vide the

impugned order seeking for condonation of delay. Therefore, the Civil

Revision Petition fails and the same deserves to be and is accordingly

dismissed. No costs.

9. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand

closed.

___________________ P. SAM KOSHY, J

Date : 01.08.2025 Ndr

 
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 : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter