Telangana High Court
Enugula Ashok vs Jangili Sreedhar on 7 November, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3953 of 2025
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated
19.08.2025 passed in I.A.No.288 of 2024 in O.S.No.116 of 2022 by the
learned Senior Civil Judge, Jayashankar Bhupalpally.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that this
C.R.P. is filed aggrieved by the dismissal of I.A.No.288 of 2024 filed in
the same O.S.No.116 of 2022, where the said application is filed by
the petitioner for condonation of 539 days in filing the said application
for setting aside the decree passed in O.S.No.116 of 2022 (old
O.S.No.617 of 2019). It is further submitted that as against the
judgment passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bhupalpally in
O.S.No.116 of 2022 (old O.S.No.617 of 2019) dated 10.04.2023, E.P.
proceedings have been initiated by the plaintiff therein vide E.P.No.1 of
2024 on the file of learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge at
Hanumakonda and as the property in question is falling within
jurisdiction of other Court, a CRP has been filed vide C.R.P.No.4014 of
2025 by the petitioner herein aggrieved by the orders passed in
E.P.No.1 of 2024 before the other Co-ordinate portfolio Bench and
further submitted that notice has been ordered by this Court in the
said C.R.P., returnable by 21.11.2025.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in the
impugned order dated 19.08.2025, the learned Senior Civil Judge had
framed a point in the said I.A. as "whether the petitioner /
defendant is entitled to condone the delay of 539 days, as prayed
for?" and answered the said point by giving various reasons including
that of "as per the averments made in the petition from March,
2020, the petitioner / defendant did not appear before the Court
as his counsel informed in June, 2020 about transfer of the case
due to reorganization of judicial districts and the Court will send
notices to him."
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that while
taking objection to the same, the learned Senior Civil Judge ought to
have verified the record of the Court whether any notice has been
served upon the petitioner or not and without making any
observations on the said aspect, had made his observation in a
mechanical manner. Hence, the said order suffers from non-
application of mind and the impugned observation does not constitute
a proper judicial determination and seeks to pass appropriate orders.
6. This Court after hearing prima facie it appears the learned trial
court ought to have examined the Court records before it, instead of
making such a vague observation, and accordingly the said order
suffers from infirmity of law. Accordingly, the order by the said trial
Court stands set aside and the matter is remanded back to the
learned trial court i.e. to the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jayashankar
Bhupalpally to decide the said I.A. afresh basing upon the records
available before it by issuing notice to both parties and after granting
sufficient opportunity of hearing, and since notice is directed to be
served on the respondent is ordered, notice to respondent is hereby
dispensed with.
7. Hence, the trial court is directed to conduct the proceedings
afresh in the said I.A. and dispose of the same as expeditiously as
possible with the above directions preferably within a period of six (06)
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time,
both the parties are directed to maintain status quo obtaining as on
today.
8. With the above directions, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed
of. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications if any pending,
in this petition, shall stand closed.
____________________
E.V.VENUGOPAL, J
Date: 07.11.2025
Nsk
