Dr G Suchira vs Maheswari Chits Funds Mancheriyal
2025 Latest Caselaw 1850 Tel

Telangana High Court

Dr G Suchira vs Maheswari Chits Funds Mancheriyal on 6 February, 2025

Author: N. Tukaramji

Bench: N. Tukaramji

     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI

                      I.A.No.1 of 2018
                           IN/AND
                     A.S.No.657 of 2018

COMMON ORDER:

This petition is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff

seeking to condone the delay of 664 days in preferring

the first appeal.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

that the petitioner as plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery

of money of Rs.5,90,000/- with interest at 18% per

annum from the respondent/defendant/chit funds

company. He pleads that the plaintiff during her

minority subscribed chit with the defendant but the prize

amount said to have paid by the respondent/defendant

to some third party even after she attained majority,

which is ex-facie illegal. Thus claiming entitlement filed

the suit for recovery.

3. In regard to delay, learned counsel would submit

that the petitioner/plaintiff was minor during relevant

time and after attainment of majority and came to

knowledge about the chit proceedings and the suit for

recovery of money filed by her father on her behalf for

the prize amount. In addition pleaded that, after the

judgment in the suit, as the petitioner's father passed

away, she was in trauma and could not take immediate

steps to file related appeal against the dismissal of the

suit. However, as the petitioner got good case to contest

in the appeal, as such prayed for allowing the petition.

4. I have perused the materials on record.

5. As per the cause title of the judgment, the

petitioner/appellant is shown aged 23 years and a

perusal of record is indicating that during the pendency

of the suit vide I.A.No.135 of 2006 dated 09.11.2006, the

petitioner/appellant came on record and conducted the

suit till the date of judgment i.e., 20.01.2016. Thus, the

claim that after attaining majority, the petitioner was

informed about the suit proceedings and its dismissal

cannot be accepted. The other explanation offered is

death of petitioner's father. However, for the reasons

best known to the petitioner, the date of demise and

what went wrong and how long, she was in

trauma/depression not even specified in the affidavit.

6. It is settled position that though the petitioner is

seeking condonation of delay, though not expected to

explain the day to day delay, it is incumbent to give a

plausible and reasonable explanation covering the period

of the delay. That being the position and as the reasons

offered by the petitioner are falling short to explain the

delay of 664 days, this petition is falling on merits and

accordingly is liable to be dismissed.

7. In the result, I.A.No.1 of 2018 is dismissed in

consequence appeal stands dismissed. No costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any,

pending in this civil revision petition shall stand closed.

___________________ N. TUKARAMJI, J

Date: 06.02.2025 ssy