The court emphasized the importance of allowing time for compliance with costs in the context of genuine delays, reinforcing that procedural fairness is essential for justice.

ORDER :

B.S.Bhanumathi, J.

I.A.No.1 of 2025 is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay of 1865 days in preferring the present revision petition.

2. This revision petition is filed under Section 115 of C.P.C. challenging the order dated 11.03.2020 in I.A.No.74 of 2020 in I.A.No.641 of 2017 in O.S.No.92 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the I Additional District Judge, Ananthapuramu.

3. The case of the petitioners is, briefly stated, as follows :

The revision petitioners Nos.1 and 2 filed a suit in O.S.No.92 of 2015 against the respondent No.1 for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the plaint schedule house property, based on a registered sale deed dated 04.02.2015 from the defendant coupled with possession of the same. They pleaded that, while the plaintiffs were getting the property renovated, the defendant entered into the property proclaiming that he has right over the property and had not sold the property to the plaintiffs and thus he illegally occupied the plaint schedule property by dispossessing the plaintiffs, being women, could not resist the defendant as he was supported by local political leaders and is involved in criminal activities.

4. The defendant resisted the suit by filing a written statement denying the case of the plaintiffs and affirmatively stating that the plaintiffs suppressed the truth and filed the frivolous suit; that the defendant had approached the Syndicate Bank, Vuravakonda for financial assistance and secured loan of Rs.9,90,000/- and later the amount due rised to Rs.11,49,165/-; that the bank declared the loan as non-performing asset (N.P.A.) and put the property for auction by issuing notice; that the defendant executed the sale deed dated 04.02.2015 by entering into an understanding that the plaintiffs had to pay the amount due to the bank and the defendant should execute a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs, without actually delivering the possession of the property; that taking undue advantage of the registered sale deed, the plaintiffs filed this frivolous suit with false averments; that on the very same day i.e., on 04.02.2015, the plaintiffs executed a consent deed in favour of the defendant agreeing to cancel the sale deed after receiving an amount of Rs.12,27,500/- from the defendant; that thus, the sale deed is not supported by the entire amount of cash consideration; that on 08.06.2015, the defendant got issued a legal notice through his counsels Sri P.Ramalingaiah and K.V.Subba Rayudu calling upon the plaintiffs to cancel the sale deed dated 12.06.2015; that the plaintiffs, having received the notice, suppressed the same in the plaint; the plaintiffs contemplated to grab the property and; that there is no cause of action for filing the suit. 5. As the sole defendant died on 17.03.2016 pending the suit, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.641 of 2017 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay of 557 days in filing a petition to bring the legal representatives of the sole defendant on record. The legal representatives did not contest I.A.No.641 of 2017, however, the petition was dismissed for default.

6. I.A.No.74 of 2020 was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone delay of 530 days in filing a petition to restore I.A.No.641 of 2017. I.A.No.74 of 2020 was allowed on merits on 11.03.2020 with a condition that the petitioners shall pay costs of Rs.500/- to the other side on or before 17.03.2020. On 17.03.2020, the petition in I.A.No.74 of 2020 was dismissed for default.

7. I.A.No.94 of 2021 was filed to set aside the order dated 17.03.2020 in I.A.No.74 of 2020. It was dismissed on 21.04.2022 as I.A.No.74 of2020