Telangana High Court
Pendota Kotoju Venkata Chary Died Per ... vs Devarakonda Maheshwaramma on 23 September, 2025
The Hon'ble Smt. Justice Renuka Yara
Civil Revision Petition No.1727 of 2024
Order:
This is a Civil Revision Petition directed against the
impugned order passed by the learned Prl. Junior Civil
Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Huzurabad
in I.A.No.856 of 2022 in I.A.No.615 of 2008 in O.S.No.538
of 1968, dated 14.09.2023.
2. Heard Sri Dunna Ambedkar, learned counsel for the
revision petitioner No.2 and Sri K. Buchi Babu, learned
counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3/proposed
petitioners.
3. The deceased plaintiff who is shown as revision
petitioner No.1 herein filed suit for partition and the said
suit was decreed allotting 1/6th share to the deceased
plaintiff. Then, the revision petitioner No.2 herein filed a
petition vide I.A.No.790 of 2010 to bring him on record
after the demise of the deceased plaintiff who initiated final
decree proceedings and the same came to be dismissed for
default. Currently, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein have
filed the present petition to condone the delay of 12 years 8
::2::
months 17 days in filing the petition to set aside the order
of abatement passed against the deceased plaintiff. In that
regard, the revisions petitioner herein opposed the petition
contending that the delay is not properly explained. The
reasons for delay about the respondent Nos.1 to 3 being
ignorant of law cannot be a ground for condoning the
delay. While disposing of the petition, the learned Trial
Court held that the nature of proceedings and necessity of
representation of the proposed parties has to be considered
for condoning delay. It is held that the respondent Nos.1 to
3 cannot be made to suffer for not filing the petition at
appropriate stage i.e. within 90 days of death of their
father. It is further held that for adjudication of final decree
proceedings, there is a need for presence of respondent
Nos.1 to 3 herein, as such, delay was condoned. Aggrieved
by the same, the revision petition is filed.
4. In grounds of revision, it is submitted that the delay
of 12 years, 8 months and 17 days is condoned without
there being a proper explanation about the reasons for
delay. The preliminary decree as well as order of abatement
in I.A.No.615 of 2008 were passed in the year 2008. It is
::3::
contended that mere ground of ignorance is not sufficient
to condone the delay of 12½ years and therefore, the
learned Trial Court grossly erred in allowing the petition.
5. During arguments in revision, the learned counsel for
the revision petitioner No.2 relied upon judgment of the
Hon'ble supreme Court of India in case between Esha
Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur
Nafar Academy and others 1 about what constitutes a
sufficient cause.
6. There is no dispute about the fact that the father of
respondent Nos.1 to 3 and revision petitioner No.2 herein
filed a suit for partition and obtained a preliminary decree.
Subsequently, in the year 2008, final decree proceedings
were initiated and at that time, the father of respondent
Nos.1 to 3 died. At this juncture, allegedly, revision
petitioner No.2 has convinced the respondent Nos.1 to 3
who are his natural sisters that he will come on record,
that he will get the share of their father allotted in his
name and then the same be equally divided among the
sisters and the brother. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 believed
(2013) 12 SCC 649
::4::
the version of revision petitioner No.2 and therefore, did
not participate in the suit proceedings. Subsequently,
respondent Nos.1 to 3 came to know that the revision
petitioner No.2 closed the petition filed by him to bring him
on record and by getting the final decree proceedings
abated is trying to get mutation of entire share of
properties allotted to their father in the final decree in his
name. The version of respondent Nos.1 to 3 does not give
clarity about whether there is conclusion of final decree
proceedings or they are still pending.
7. The reason of ignorance is not a ground for non-
participation of the respondent Nos.1 to 3, rather, they
have believed their brother's version i.e. revision petitioner
No.2 herein that he will come on record, get the share of
their father and then divide it among the siblings. The
respondent Nos.1 to 3 believed the said version and have
voluntarily desisted from participating in the said
proceedings. At this juncture, the respondent Nos.1 to 3
cannot claim ignorance about the suit proceedings. In the
judgment relied upon by the revision petitioner No.2 herein
in Esha Bhattacharjee case (supra), the delay was sought
::5::
to be condoned on the plea of lack of knowledge and the
same is held to be lacked bona fides. The facts of said case
are not applicable to the facts of the present case. The
reason cited for delay by respondent Nos.1 to 3 i.e. lack of
knowledge, is not correct and therefore, not sufficient to
condone the delay.
8. From the overall pleadings of the affidavit filed by the
respondent Nos.1 to 3, it can be inferred that the final
decree has been passed allotting a share to their father and
revision petitioner No.2 is trying to get the said share of
their father mutated completely in his name to the
exclusion of the respondent Nos.1 to 3. That being the
case, since the final decree proceedings have concluded
and a share has been allotted to the revision petitioner
No.2, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein have to agitate for
their share against the revision petitioner No.2 in separate
proceedings and no relief can be sought in the final decree
proceedings that have already concluded in the year 2018.
As stated by revision petitioner No.2, no purpose will be
solved even in case the present petition is allowed as the
final decree proceedings have concluded. The respondent
::6::
Nos.1 to 3 have to work out their remedies against their
brother i.e. revisions petitioner No.2 herein for recovery of
their share in the property allotted to their father in
O.S.No.538 of 1968. In the circumstances, there are no
merits in the order passed by the learned Trial Court and
the same is liable to be set aside.
9. In the result, the impugned order dated 14.09.2023,
in I.A.No.856 of 2022 in I.A.No.615 of 2008 in O.S.No.538
of 1968, on the file of the learned Prl. Junior Civil Judge-
cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Huzurabad, is set
aside and the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any,
pending in this petition shall stand closed.
___________________
RENUKA YARA, J
Date: 23.09.2025
gvl
