The court held that a delay of 179 days in filing a revision petition was inadequately explained, and therefore the application to condone the delay was dismissed, emphasizing the importance of statutory timelines.

ORDER :

V.SRISHANANDA, J.

Heard Sri Anagha Narasimha C.N., learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Ajit P.B., counsel for the petitioner on I.A.No.1/2019. None appears for the respondents.

2. There is delay of 179 days in filing the present revision petition. Therefore, application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the said delay period.

3. Application is supported by affidavit of the revision petitioner. Relevant paragraph in the affidavit at paragraph 12 which reads as under:

I submit that after the date of the impugned order dated 16^th June 2017, I have requested my counsel to apply immediately for obtaining certified copy of the impugned order and certified copies were applied on 19/06/2017 and the copies of the order was ready only on 26.07.2017. After collecting the copy of the impugned order, as due to I am residing in U.S.A. and busy work schedules I was not able to contact my counsel my counsel to provide necessary instructions in order to file this current petition impugning the order dated 16^th June 2017 in time. Therefore, as a result, there was a delay of around 50 days in providing vakalath and verifying affidavit required in order to file this current petition impugning the Order dated 16^th June 2017, passed by the Trial Court. Due to the aforesaid reasons, there was further delay in filing of this petition.”

4. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under:

4.1. A suit came to be filed in O.S.No.134/2014 by the revision petitioner with the following prayer in respect of following properties (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit properties’.)

“WHEREFORE the Plaintiff most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass a judgment and decree:

(i) Declaring the Deed of Mortgage dated February 11, 2008 executed by Defendant No.1 in favour of Defendant No.14 as null and void:

(ii) Directing the Defendants to execute a sale deed in favour of the Plaintiff in respect of the Schedule B Property as also defined under the Agreement to Sell;

(iii) Of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their assignees, their legal representatives, their successors in interest from encumbering, alienating or creating any charge over the Schedule B property, and

(iv) grant such other relief's as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and aforementioned circumstances.”

SCHEDULE 'A' PROPERTY

(DESCRIPTION OF ENTIRE PROPERTY)

ITEM No.1: PROPERTY OWNED BY THE HINDU

JOINT FAMILY OF SRI MUNIANJINAPPA

1. Portion of immovable property being residentially converted land bearing Sy No.94, situated at Ellthore Village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District measuring an extent of 6 acres 26 guntas and bounded on the:

East by: Sy. No.93

West by: Remaining portion of Sy. No.94

North by: Sy. No.96

South by: Sy. No. 86

II. Portion of immovable property being residentially converted land bearing Sy.No.96, situated at Ellthore Village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District measuring an extent of 6 acres 23 guntas and bounded on the:

East by : Sy. No.91

West by : Remaining portion of Sy No.96

North by: Sy. Nos. 97, 98, 90

South by: Sy. Nos.95, 94, 92

III. Portion of immovable property being residentially converted land bearing Sy No.98, situated at Ellthore Village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District measuring an extent of 7 acres 33 guntas and bounded on the:

East by : Sy. No.99

West by : Remaining portion of Sy No.98

North by : Village boundary of Choudanahalli

South by: Sy.No.96

Totally m'easuring an extent of 21 Acres 02 guntas

ITEM No.2: PROPERTY OWNED BY THE HINDU JOINT FAMILY OF SRI M.H. NAGARAJ

1. Portion of immovabl