Telangana High Court
K. Anantha Sri Chandrasekhar vs Kuppala Venkata Laxmi on 9 June, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1755 OF 2024
ORDER:
This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated
02.04.2024 passed in I.A.No.1381 of 2023 in AS(SR).No.6036 of
2023 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad,
whereby an application filed seeking to condone the delay of 285
days in filing the appeal against the judgment and decree dated
23.06.2020 passed in OS.No.2068 of 2015 on the file of V Junior
Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, was dismissed.
2. Heard Sri B.Mohan, learned counsel for petitioners and
Sri K.V.Mallikarjun Rao, learned counsel for respondent.
3. The issue that falls for consideration before this Court in this
Civil Revision Petition is whether the petitioners have shown
sufficient and valid grounds for condonation of delay in filing the
Appeal against the judgment passed by the trial Court. Therefore,
the merits of the suit vis-à-vis either parties to the suit are not
relevant and hence, the same are not adverted to.
4. The petitioners, in the affidavit filed in support of the
application to condone the delay of 285 days in filing the Appeal
against the judgment of the trial Court, have principally contended
LNA, J
that summons were not served on them through the Court in
OS.No.2068 of 2015, as such, they had no knowledge about filing
of the suit, suit proceedings and passing of decree against them in
the said suit. It was further averred that they came to know about
the said suit only on 10.02.2023, that too, on being informed by
their counsel, who is representing them in OS.No.921 of 2014 on
the file of VIII Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at
L.B.Nagar, that there is a mention of OS.No.2068 of 2015 on the
file of V Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in the
counter-affidavit filed in IA.No.568 of 2019 in IA.No.792 of 2016
in OS.No.921 of 2014 and hence, the delay occurred in filing the
Appeal and sought to condone the same.
5. The respondent filed counter affidavit denying the averments
made by the petitioners in the application and contended that the
petitioners were well aware of pendency of OS.No.2068 of 2015;
that she has also given the list of proceedings with respective dates
in OS.Nos.921 of 2014 and 1116 of 2014 on the file of VIII
Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, in which there
was specific mention about the pendency of OS.No.2068 of 2015,
however, the petitioners remained silent and pretend to be unaware
LNA, J
of filing of O.S.No.2068 of 2015 and therefore, there is deliberate
negligence on the part of the petitioners in filing the Appeal and
hence, the delay cannot be condoned.
6. The First Appellate Court, taking into consideration the
pleadings of both the parties and the submissions advanced by the
learned counsel for both the parties, has declined to condone the
delay by the impugned order. Questioning the same, the present
Revision Petition is filed.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the First
Appellate Court failed to consider the fact that in OS.No.2068 of
2015, notice was not served on the petitioners through Court or
registered post and further, publication of notice by way of
substitute service under Order V Rule 20 CPC is not sufficient
service, and has erroneously passed the impugned order declining
to condone the delay. Learned counsel further contended that
substantial rights of the petitioners are involved in the suit and as
such, the First Appellate Court ought to have condoned the delay
at least by imposing costs. By contending thus, learned counsel
prayed to allow the Revision Petition.
LNA, J
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent
contended that the petitioners were well aware of filing of suit in
O.S.No.2068 of 2015 against them as there is specific mention
about the same in the proceedings/material papers that were filed in
other suits pending between the same parties i.e., in O.S.No.921 of
2014 and 1116 of 2014 and hence, the plea of the petitioners that
they got knowledge about the suit-OS.No.2068 of 2015 only on
10.02.2023 is utterly false and cannot be sustained. Learned
counsel, therefore, contended that the First Appellate Court passed
the impugned order on appreciating the entire facts and it has
rightly concluded that the reasons assigned by the petitioners for
condoning the delay are not sustainable and hence, the impugned
order warrants no interference by this Court.
9. This Court has gave its earnest consideration to the
submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties and
perused the entire record.
10. It is trite to note that in the grounds raised in this Revision
Petition, the petitioners have themselves stated that the respondent
got the notice published in newspaper by way of substitute service.
It is relevant to note that a party will be permitted by the Court to
LNA, J
take notice by substitute service by way of paper publication only
on being satisfied that the party seeking to take substitute service
has taken all efforts to serve notice on the other party, but in vain.
In such an event, the plea of the petitioners that no summons were
served on them in O.S.No.2068 of 2015 and as such, they were
unaware of the said suit proceedings is untenable. That apart, the
respondent contended that in the proceedings in suits in
O.S.No.921 of 2014 and OS.No.1116 of 2014, which are between
the same parties as that of OS.No.2068 of 2015, particularly, in the
written statements filed by her in the said suits, there is a mention
about filing of the suit-OS.No.2068 of 2015, and further, the
factum of suit-OS.No.2068 of 2015 is also mentioned in the order
dated 25.01.2017 passed by VIII Additional District Judge, Ranga
Reddy District in IA.No.792 of 2016 in OS.No.921 of 2014. The
respondent was even precise in giving the paragraph numbers in
her written statements in O.S.Nos.921 of 2014 and OS.No.1116 of
2014, which were filed on 27.04.2015 and 16.06.2015, in which
there is a specific mention about the suit-OS.No.2068 of 2015.
These facts were not denied by the petitioners. Admittedly, the said
suits-OS.Nos.921 of 2014 and 1116 of 2014 were filed by the
LNA, J
petitioners and as such, they being represented by a counsel cannot
plead ignorance of contents of the written statements filed in the
said suits.
11. The respondent stated that even in the order dated
25.01.2017 passed in IA.No.792 of 2016 in OS.No.921 of 2014,
there is mention of the suit-OS.No.2068 of 2015 at para-8 thereof.
12. The petitioners have not rebutted the aforesaid facts.
13. When it is the case of the petitioners that they got
knowledge of the suit-OS.No.2068 of 2015, only when their
counsel informed them that there is mention of OS.No.2068 of
2015 in the counter affidavit filed in IA.No.568 of 2019 in
IA.No.792 of 2016 in OS.No.921 of 2014, it is not known as to
why the petitioners were not informed by their counsel earlier
about the suit-OS.No.2068 of 205 when there is mention of the
same in the written statements filed by the respondent in
OS.Nos.921 of 2014 and 1116 of 2014 and also in the order dated
25.01.2017 passed in IA.No.792 of 2016 in O.S.No.921 of 2014.
The reasons offered by the petitioner for condonation of delay does
not inspire confidence of this Court and hence, are not believable.
LNA, J
14. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court
is of the considered view that the grounds pleaded by the
petitioners for condoning the delay cannot be countenanced and are
believable and therefore, they are not entitled for indulgence of this
Court in condoning the delay.
15. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
16. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
No costs.
___________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J
Date:09.06.2025
dr
