SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(AP) 95

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.
P. Nageswara Rao
v.
Marath Jayanthi and others
CRP No.5212 of 2012
Decided on: Twenty Fourth Day of January, 2014

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared
G.V.S. Kishore Kumar, Counsel for the Petitioner
N. Ravi Prasad, Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4.

Headnote:Limitation Act 1963, Section 5---Civil Procedure Code 1908 - Section 96 - Appeal –Delay--- Delay of 478 days in filing petition can be condoned by accepting cause shown that immediately after taking certified copy of judgment, petitioner went to his native village to follow property dispute.

ORDER

1. Heard both sides.

2. This civil revision petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 19.7.2012 passed in IA No.429 of 2012 in an unnumbered A.S., by the Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam rejecting the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking to condone the delay in filing the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 9.8.2010 passed in OS No.1186 of 2005 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam.

3. The suit filed by the petitioner herein for declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of the suit schedule property is dismissed by judgment and decree dated 9.8.2010. As against the same, he preferred appeal before the first appellate Court. As there was delay of 478 days in filing the appeal, he filed application - IA No.429 of 2012 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking to condone the delay. In the affidavit filed in support of the I.A., it is stated that after taking certified copy of the judgment, the petitioner went to his native village in connection with acquisition disputes of his ancestral property and as he was pursuing the said disputes, he could not approach his Counsel and file the appeal in time. The Court below, by the impugned order, dismissed the I.A. Hence, this civil revision petition.

4. It is represented that, in an identical matter, when I.A., filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay was dismissed, he filed revision petition vide CRP No.5250 of 2012 and this Court by order dated 11.6.2012 allowed the same.

5. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, I have perused the order dated 11.6.2012 passed in CRP No.5250 of 2012.

6. In view of the specific averments mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of IA No.429 of 2012 filed by the petitioner, that immediately after taking certified copy of the judgment of the lower appellate Court, he went to his native village to pursue acquisition disputes of his ancestral property and therefore could not contact his Counsel in time, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case to give an opportunity to the petitioner to contest the claim on merits.

7. For the aforesaid reasons, this civil revision petition is allowed and the order dated 19.7.2012 passed in IA No.429 of 2012 in an un-numbered A.S. of the year 2012, is hereby set aside. Consequently, IA No.429 of 2012 stands allowed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this C.R.P., stand closed. No order as to costs.



Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top