Telangana High Court
Lingampally Satyanarayana Reddy And 3 ... vs State Bank Of Hyderabad And 10 Others on 17 March, 2025
Author: G.Radha Rani
Bench: G.Radha Rani
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1492 of 2019
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners/appellants,
aggrieved by the order and decree dated 25.02.2019 passed in
I.A.No.1027 of 2018 in an unregistered Appeal Suit on the file of the
learned Principal District Judge at Warangal.
2. The appellants are defendant Nos.3 to 5 and 7 in O.S.No.392 of
2006. The respondent No.1/plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of money
and the said suit was decreed on contest on 31.07.2017 holding that the
defendant Nos.3 to 7 were jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of
Rs.4,32,045/- with future interest @ 10.29% per annum till realization.
Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendants preferred an
appeal and as there is a delay of 139 days in preferring
the appeal, filed an application under Order XLI Rule
3-A of CPC read with Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay
of 139 days in filing the appeal from 01.12.2017 to 18.04.2018. The
said application was dismissed by the learned Principal District Judge,
Warangal. Aggrieved by the said dismissal of the petition filed by them
Dr.GRR,J
in I.A.No.1027 of 2018 in the unregistered Appeal Suit, the petitioners
herein preferred this revision.
3. Heard learned counsel representing Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar,
learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing on
behalf of Sri A.Krishnam Raju, for the respondents.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the mother of
petitioner No.1 fell sick, she was hospitalized and subsequently she
died. She was an important family member of all the petitioners, as
such, all the family members were attending to her treatment and
subsequently, due to the grief, they could not contact their counsel and
could not file the appeal in time. Petitioners had shown sufficient cause
for condoning the delay, as such, the lower Appellate Court ought to
have given an opportunity to the petitioners to challenge the money
decree passed by the trial Court on merits and prayed to allow the CRP.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents
vehemently opposed the petition stating that the lower Appellate Court
has rightly dismissed the application, as no sufficient cause was shown
by the petitioners, no documentary proof was filed by them in proof of
their contention that the mother of petitioner No.1 fell ill and died, due
Dr.GRR,J
to the said illness. It was only stated that the mother of the petitioner
No.1 fell ill, but no explanation was given as to why the other
petitioners could not approach the Court in filing the appeal and prayed
to dismiss the petition as devoid of merits.
6. Perused the record. As seen from the affidavit filed by the
petitioner No.3/defendant No.4 along with I.A.No.1027 of 2018, it is
stated that the mother of petitioner No.1 was also his grandmother. As
she was hospitalized and all family members were attending her
treatment and subsequently, due to the grief, they could not pursue the
case in filing the appeal and the delay caused was not intentional, but
due to the above reason. He further contended that the petitioners had
fair chances in succeeding the appeal, the amount of Rs.2,00,000/-
repaid by the defendant Nos.8 to 13 was not deducted from the claim
amount, the petitioners were disputing that they were partners of the
firm, without properly appreciating their contentions, the trial Court
decreed the suit.
7. Considering that the delay is only of 139 days and the same was
not inordinate and an acceptable explanation was also given by the
petitioners and the primary function of the Court is to adjudicate the
dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice and
Dr.GRR,J
refusal to condone the delay would result in foreclosing a suitor from
putting forth his cause and there was no presumption that delay in
approaching the court was deliberate and the Hon'ble Apex Court in
several cases held that the word "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of
the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction [N.
Balakrishnan v. M. Krishna Murthy ((1998) 7 SCC 123),
Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari (AIR 1969 SC 575) and
State of West Bengal v. Administrator, Howrah Municipality (AIR
1972 SC 749), it is considered fit to allow the rervision.
8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in N. Balakrishnan v. M.
Krishnamurthy case held that:
"It must be remembered that in every case of delay
there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant
concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down his
plea and to shut the door against him. If the
explanation does not smack of mala fides or it is not
put forth as part of a dilatory strategy the court must
show utmost consideration to the suitor. But when
there is reasonable ground to think that the delay was
occasioned by the party deliberately to gain time then
the court should lean against acceptance of the
explanation. While condoning delay the court should
not forget the opposite party altogether. It must be
borne in mind that he is a looser and he too would
have incurred quiet a large litigation expenses. It
would be a salutary guideline that when courts
condone the delay due to laches on the part of the
applicant, the court shall compensate the opposite
party for his loss.
Dr.GRR,J
9. In the result, the CRP is allowed, setting aside the order, dated
25.02.2019 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Warangal, in
I.A.No.1027 of 2018 in unregistered Appeal Suit, by condoning the
delay on payment of costs of Rs.2,000/- to the respondent/plaintiff
within a period of (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order. The lower Appellate Court is directed to register the suit, if it is
otherwise found to be in order. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________
Dr. G.RADHA RANI, J
Date: 17.03.2025
mnv
Dr.GRR,J
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1492 of 2019
Date: 17.03.2025
mnv
