Telangana High Court
Smt. C.Shashl Kiran vs B. Ramchandra Reddy, Died Per Lrs on 24 January, 2025
Author: P.Sam Koshy
Bench: P.Sam Koshy
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.129 of 2025
ORDER:
The present Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners herein
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order
dated 13.11.2024 in I.A.No.322 of 2024 in ASSR.No.965 of 2024
passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy
District at L.B. Nagar.
2. Heard Mrs. Manjari S Ganu, learned counsel for the petitioners.
3. Vide the impugned order, the Appellate Court has rejected the
appeal preferred by the petitioners herein filed along with a condone
delay petition i.e. I.A.No.322 of 2024, against the judgment and decree
dated 04.10.2023 in O.S.No.596 of 2013 passed by the IV Additional
Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is a case
where the Suit filed by the respondents seeking for ratification deed
bearing document No.2429 of 2024, dated 20.06.2024, to be declared
as null and void was decreed in favour of the respondents vide
judgment and decree dated 04.10.2023. On the same day, certified
copy was applied and obtained on 28.10.2023. Immediately, thereafter
on 02.11.2023, it is contended that the husband of petitioner No.1
suffered from a brain ailment and had to be subjected to brain
surgery. In between i.e. on 15.11.2023, the father-in-law of the
petitioner No.1 also expired and in the process, the appeal could not
be pursued and filed within the stipulated period. However, the appeal
was filed before the Appellate Court with only a delay of 58 days.
5. It is this condonation of delay petition which now stands
dismissed by the Appellate Court is under challenge in this Revision
Petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that if the aforesaid
two grounds raised in the condone delay petition, firstly the husband
of petitioner No.1 being subjected to brain surgery. Immediately, after
obtaining the certified copy and the father-in-law of petitioner No.1
also expiring shortly thereafter on 15.11.2023 are not considered to be
genuine and bona fide grounds causing delay, the petitioners herein
would be put to irreparable loss. Inasmuch as they would be rendered
remediless to challenge the judgment and decree any further.
7. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, these two
grounds have not been disputed or disbelieved by the Court and in the
said circumstances a more pragmatic approach was expected from the
Court while considering the condone delay petition i.e. I.A.No.322 of
2024.
8. Upon due consideration of the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioners and also on appreciating the contents of the
documents enclosed along with the Revision Petition, this Court is of
the firm view that the Appellate Courts hearing an appeal, particularly
those which have been filed with a condone delay petition, unless
there is an inordinate unexplained delay without justification
whatsoever, the same have to be considered in a more liberal and
pragmatic manner. The fact which the first Appellate Court should
appreciate is that in the event if the condone delay petition is not
entertained and allowed, the parties would be left remediless to
challenge the said impugned judgment, particularly when the delay
not being inordinate. In the instant case, the delay is only that of 58
days.
9. In the circumstances of the two grounds pleaded by the
petitioners being not found to be untrue and false, this Court is of the
considered opinion that it is a fit case to allow I.A.No.322 of 2024.
Accordingly, the order dated 13.11.2024 in I.A.No.322 of 2024 in
ASSR.No.965 of 2024 is set aside and the delay in filing of the first
appeal stands condoned. The matter stands remitted back to the
Court of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy
District at L.B. Nagar. As a consequence, the I.A.No.322 of 2024 is
ordered to be allowed and appeal should also be registered and the
Principal District and Sessions Judge is expected to take up the
appeal in accordance with law and decide the same as expeditiously as
possible.
10. The Civil Revision Petition accordingly stands allowed. No costs.
11. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand
closed.
__________________
P.SAM KOSHY, J
Date: 24.01.2025
GSD
