Telangana High Court
C. Sumitra Bai vs Bandaru Monica on 11 March, 2025
THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
AND
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2025
In/and
WRIT APPEAL No.264 of 2025
JUDGMENT:
(Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul)
Sri S.Rama Chandra Prasad, learned counsel for the
appellant; Sri Sankalp Pissay, learned counsel for respondent
No.1; and Sri G.Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel
for GHMC, appearing for respondent Nos.3 to 6.
2. Heard on the application for condonation of delay and on the
application for leave.
3. The impugned order is passed by the learned Single Judge
on 16.06.2023 in W.P.No.15143 of 2023. The present writ appeal
is filed on 17.02.2025 with a delay of 582 days. To wriggle out of
the delay, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant has not been impleaded by respondent No.1 (writ
petitioner) in the aforesaid writ petition, despite the fact that
appellant was a necessary party and admittedly, respondent No.1
and the appellant are parties to O.S.No.637 of 2023. Thus,
respondent No.1, in all fairness, should have impleaded the
appellant as a party. Since the appellant was not a party and
came to know about the impugned order of the learned Single
Judge after receiving the notice from Greater Hyderabad
Municipal Corporation (hereinafter, referred to as, 'GHMC'), she
filed this writ appeal with quite promptitude.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 opposed the aforesaid
interlocutory applications and urged that, admittedly, both the
parties are litigants in O.S.No.637 of 2023. The impugned order
of the learned Single Judge dated 16.06.2023 was filed along with
the list of documents filed by the plaintiffs in another suit, namely
O.S.No.5116 of 2023. The appellant is defendant No.2 in the said
suit. Along with the list of documents filed in the said suit, the
impugned order of the learned Single Judge dated 16.06.2023 was
filed, a copy whereof was supplied to the learned counsel for
defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4 on 06.12.2023. Learned counsel for the
said defendants have received a copy under the signature. Thus,
learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the appellant
came to know about the impugned order on 06.12.2023 and
thereafter has not explained the delay in filing the present writ
appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant maintained with the stand
that the appellant came to know about the impugned order of the
learned Single Judge only when she received the notices from
GHMC after the order of the learned Single Judge dated
16.06.2023.
6. We have heard the parties on the interlocutory application
for condonation of delay at length.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant, despite repeated query,
did not meet the aforesaid point raised by respondent No.1 that a
copy of the impugned order dated 16.06.2023 was received along
with the list of documents by the appellant, who is defendant No.2
in O.S.No.5116 of 2023, on 06.12.2023. The enormous delay from
that date has not been explained either in the interlocutory
application or otherwise.
8. Thus, we are unable to persuade ourselves with the line of
argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the
appellant came to know about the impugned order of the learned
Single Judge only upon receiving the notices from GHMC. The list
of documents filed with the counter affidavit of respondent No.1
which contains the signature of the learned counsel for the
defendant No.2 in O.S.No.5116 of 2023 showing receipt of the
impugned order of the learned Single Judge on 06.12.2023 could
not be rebutted.
9. Thus, the enormous delay of 582 days in filing the appeal
could not be explained satisfactorily. The interlocutory
application for condonation of delay is accordingly dismissed.
10. Resultantly, the interlocutory application seeking leave and
the writ appeal are also dismissed. No costs.
_________________________
SUJOY PAUL, ACJ
__________________________
RENUKA YARA, J
11.03.2025
sa/vs
