Telangana High Court
The Executive Director vs Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited on 3 January, 2025
Author: P. Sree Sudha
Bench: P.Sree Sudha
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 997 of 2022
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order,
dated 06.12.2021, passed in I.A.No.292 of 2019 in
A.S.S.R.No.4983 of 2007 by the learned Principal District and
Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.
2. I.A.No.292 of 2019 was filed by respondents No.1 to
4/appellants/plaintiffs to condone the delay of 6 days in filing the
appeal in A.S.S.R.No.4983 of 2007. The first appellate Court
considering the arguments of both sides, allowed the application.
Aggrieved by the order of the first appellate Court,
petitioners/respondents/defendants preferred the present Civil
Revision Petition.
3. Heard both sides. Perused the record.
4. Learned counsel for petitioners contended that respondent
Nos.1 to 4 deliberately not joined Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited
(BHEL) which is a necessary and proper party. Respondent Nos.1
to 4/appellants deleted the names of appellants Nos.3, 4, 6 to 10
i.e., respondent Nos.8 to 14 herein as per their whims and choices
without permission of the first appellate Court though they were
initially shown as appellant Nos.7 to 13 in A.S.S.R.No.4983 of
2007. The first appellate Court erred in condoning the delay of 6
days treating it as simple delay and ought to have seen that mere
permitting of respondent Nos.1 to 4 to reconstruct the appeal does
not mean that the delay occasioned on account of sheer
negligence of respondent Nos.1 to 4/appellants in
A.S.S.R.No.4983 of 2007 is condoned. Therefore, requested the
Court to set aside the order of the first appellate Court.
5. Perusal of the record shows that suit was filed by plaintiffs
against defendants. Service of plaintiffs/teachers was terminated.
The trial Court observed that the said issue was also raised in
Writ Petition and it amounts to doctrine of estoppel and
accordingly dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the said judgment,
they intended to file but could not file the same. Plaintiffs mainly
contended that there was no reconstruction of the record, as such
after getting it done, there is only delay of 6 days and thus
requested the Court to condone the delay.
6. The suit was filed in the year 2002 and it was dismissed on
21.06.2007 and the plaintiffs intended to prefer the appeal in the
year 2007 itself. Therefore, the question of missing of the
documents does not arise and even if it so, it is for the plaintiffs to
inform about the same to their learned Principal District Judge
and request for reconstruction of the same by duly submitting the
documents available with them but they filed an application for
reconstruction of the bundle in I.A.No.148 of 2019. This clearly
shows that they have not pursued the litigation with due diligence
from 2007 to 2019. It is stated that due to the shifting of old
building to the new building, record was not found. It is further
stated that they filed an appeal on 28.09.2007 by way of challan
and after filing the appeal, some of the appellants settled their
claims with their management. It is also stated that respondent
Nos.3, 4, 6 to 10 settled their claims and respondent Nos.4 and 5
not prosecuted the appeal. In a counter it is stated that Court
ought to have returned the appeal with an endorsement to file the
appeal with a delay petition but respondent Nos.1 to
4/appellants/plaintiffs kept quiet for 12 years. The first appellate
Court permitted the plaintiffs to reconstruct the appeal on
04.02.2019. The explanation for the delay from 2007 to 2019 is
not given properly. The plaintiffs in the suit lost their suit.
Though they filed an appeal in the year 2007 itself, they kept quiet
without getting it numbered till 2019 and simply stated that
record was missing. They have not filed any representation given
to the Officer to show their bonafides. The first appellate Court
observed that reconstruction order was not challenged and
considered the delay of 6 days. The abnormal delay of 12 years
was not properly explained by respondent Nos.1 to
4/appellants/plaintiffs. Therefore, this Court finds that the order
of the first appellate Court is not on proper appreciation of facts
and is liable to be set aside.
7. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed by setting
aside the order of the first appellate Court dated 06.12.2021,
passed in I.A.No.292 of 2019 in A.S.S.R.No.4983 of 2007. There
shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________
P. SREE SUDHA, J
Date: 03.01.2025
CHS
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 997 of 2022
DATE: 03.01.2025
CHS
