Racherla Badrivishal vs The Special Court
2025 Latest Caselaw 1478 Tel

Telangana High Court

Racherla Badrivishal vs The Special Court on 29 January, 2025

Author: T. Vinod Kumar

Bench: T.Vinod Kumar, P.Sree Sudha

             THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
                              AND
             THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

                       WRIT PETITION No.7842 of 2001

O R D E R:

(per Hon'ble Sri Justice T.Vinod Kumar)

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader

for Assignment appearing for respondent No.1, and perused the record.

2. This Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the order, dt.07.02.2001 in

IA.No.583 of 2000 in LGC.No.140 of 1997 passed by the Special Court under

the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, at Hyderabad (1st respondent

herein), whereby the said interlocutory application filed by the petitioners

herein under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking to condone the

delay in filing the petition to set aside the ex-parte decree has been dismissed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the Special

Court while considering the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation

Act, 1963 has considered the merits of the matter, which it ought not to have

done, as the Court while considering the said application is only required to

see as to whether sufficient cause has been shown for the failure of the

petitioner in filing the petition seeking to set aside the ex-parte order in time.

4. We have taken note of the submissions made.

5. Though it has been vehemently contended on behalf of the petitioners

that the Special Court had gone into the merits of the matter while

considering the petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying to

condone the delay of 596 days in filing the petition seeking to set aside the

exparte judgment, a perusal of the said order would show that the Special

Court had only noted that passing of an ex-parte judgment after the

petitioners herein having filed counter, and thus, filing of underlying

interlocutory application seeking to set aside the ex-parte judgment is by

setting up new defence deviating from their earlier stand and to reargue the

matter, which cannot be permitted.

6. Though the Special Court while the considering the underlying

application had made a reference to the stand taken by the petitioner for filing

the underlying interlocutory application seeking to set aside the ex-parte

order, that by itself cannot be a ground for the petitioners to feel aggrieved

claiming that the merits of the matter cannot be gone into while adjudicating

the interlocutory application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

7. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the

order of the Court below does not suffer from any error calling for interference

and thus, the present Writ Petition as filed is devoid of merit.

8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

9. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

closed in the light of this final order.

___________________ T. VINOD KUMAR, J

_________________ P.SREE SUDHA, J 29th January, 2025

gra

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

(per Hon'ble Sri Justice T.Vinod Kumar)

Dt.29.01.2025

gra