Telangana High Court
Kummari Venkataiah vs Bachali Venkataswamy on 26 September, 2025
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2640 OF 2025
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed seeking to set aside the
order dated 19.06.2025 in I.A.No.310 of 2024 in I.A.No.60 of 2023
in O.S.No.324 of 2020 by the learned I Additional Junior Civil
Court, Nagarkurnool (hereinafter referred to as "the trial Court")
2. Heard the submissions of Sri N. Bhujanga Rao, learned
counsel for the petitioners. None appeared on behalf of the
respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the
condone delay petition filed by them was dismissed by the learned
Junior Civil Judge without any proper reasoning. He further
submitted that they did not have knowledge about the death of
respondent No.4 and thus, a delay has occurred in bringing the
legal representatives of respondent No.4 on record. Hence, they
approached the trial Court with a petition to condone the delay of
461 days, but the trial Court has failed to consider their request
and has dismissed the said petition. Aggrieved by the said orders,
the present petition is filed. He therefore, prayed to set aside the
orders.
ETD,J
CRP No.2640_2025
4. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand
has failed to appear, inspite of an opportunity being given.
5. Perused the record.
6. The record reveals that OS.No.324 of 2020 was decreed ex-
parte on 16.08.2022. Subsequently, I.A.No.60 of 2023 was filed
under Order-9, Rule-13 seeking condonation of delay of 218 days
in filing the petition under Order-9, Rule-13 to set aside the ex-
parte decree. In the said I.A.No.60 of 2023, the petitioners wanted
to bring in the legal representatives of respondent No.4 on record,
but there was a delay of 461 days and hence, they filed I.A.No.310
of 2024 to condone the said delay in bringing the legal
representatives on record. It is borne out by record that the suit is
decreed ex-parte and the said suit was filed for Declaration of Title
and consequentially, to evict the defendants from the suit
schedule property. Thus, the suit being a comprehensive suit, the
matter needs proper adjudication on merits to do substantial
justice to the parties. It is held in the Judgment dated 16.08.2022
that the defendants failed to contest the matter as they failed to
file the written statement within the statutory period and hence,
they were set ex-parte.
7. It is further borne out by record that the defendants have
preferred an application under Order-9, Rule-13 with a delay of
ETD,J
CRP No.2640_2025
216 days. During the said pendency of the application, the
present petition is filed seeking a condonation of delay of 461 days
in bringing legal representatives of respondent No.4 on record.
The reasons assigned by the trial Court is that another suit i.e.,
O.S.No.13 of 2023 is filed by the petitioners for Perpetual
Injunction, disclosing the death of the decree holder herein.
Further, they have filed a petition to implead the legal
representatives on 18.03.2024 with a delay of 72 days in the said
suit vide O.S.No.13 of 2023. The reason assigned for the dismissal
of the present application is that the defendants have not shown
any sufficient cause, they remained absent throughout the suit
proceedings, inspite of service of summons and that they filed a
Memo under Ex.R2 stating that the defendant has died on
06.10.2023. Thus, the trial Court has held that they had
knowledge about the death of the defendant, but failed to take
steps in time.
8. A perusal of the counter filed by the respondents, shows
that the defendants in the said suit OS.No.13 of 2023 have filed a
Memo in the Court on 01.11.2023 intimating about the death of
respondent No.4 and thus, the petitioners herein have filed a
petition to bring the legal representatives on record with a delay of
72 days on 18.03.2024. The present petition is filed on
ETD,J
CRP No.2640_2025
08.04.2024, i.e., almost 20 days after filing of the said petition. It
is the assertion of respondents in this petition that the petitioners
herein gained knowledge about the death of respondent No.4 on
01.11.2023 and that they filed the petition to bring about the legal
representatives on record on 18.03.2024 in O.S.No.13 of 2023
which goes to show that the petitioner have filed a petition to
bring the legal representatives on record in the pending suit i.e.,
O.S.No.13 of 2023 which was subsequently re-numbered as
O.S.No.247 of 2023 with a delay of 72 days. However, the present
petition was filed with a gap of 20 days from the date of the said
petition. The petitions filed for condonation of delay should be
dealt with a liberal approach to end up in rendering substantial
justice. Too technical approach cannot be followed in such cases.
The reasons stated by the petitioners is that they are the residents
of another village and that they were not aware of the death of
respondent No.4. It is once again reiterated that the suit is a
comprehensive suit, deciding over the title and hence, it needs
proper adjudication on merits after affording opportunity to both
the sides. Unless the delay is condoned, the petitioners cannot be
given an opportunity to contest the suit. The reasons stated by the
petitioner is opined to be a sufficient cause to condone the delay
of 461 days.
ETD,J
CRP No.2640_2025
9. In Collector, Land Acquisition v. Katiji 1, the Apex Court
has held that in order to do substantial justice to the parties, the
matter has to be disposed of on merits and that the expression
'sufficient cause' is adequately elastic to enable the Court to apply
the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of
justice.
10. In the light of the said decision and in view of the above
held discussion, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, setting
aside the order dated 19.06.2025 in I.A.No.310 of 2024 in
I.A.No.60 of 2023 in O.S.No.324 of 2020 by the learned I
Additional Junior Civil Court, Nagarkurnool. Consequently,
I.A.No.310 of 2024 stands allowed.
Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand
closed.
_________________________________
JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
Date: 26 .09.2025
ds
1 (1987) 2 SCC 107
