The main legal point established in the judgment is the liberal construction of 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in the context of delay condonation, especially in light of the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic.

ORDER :

A. Rajasekhar Reddy, J.

1. Respondents 1 to 9 herein filed the suit in O.S. No. 76 of 2003 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, at Vikarabad, Rangareddy District, for perpetual injunction against respondents 12 to 18 herein.

2. The trial court vide judgment and decree dated 20.04.2006, decreed the suit with costs. The first appeal filed by the judgments debtors in A.S. No. 120 of 2006 on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTC, Rangareddy District, ended in dismissal vide judgment and decree dated 31.12.2007.

3. The case of respondents 10 and 11 herein, who are decree holders 10 and 11, is that decree holders 1 to 9 i.e., respondents 1 to 9 herein, sold away the suit schedule property to them, and thus they are the representatives in interest of decree holders 1 to 9 under Section 146 of the C.P.C. It is further stated that judgments 1 to 6 sold away their property in favour of judgment debtor No. 7 and he is the representative in interest of judgments 1 to 6, and the said judgment-debtor No. 7, in turn, sold away the property to judgments debtor 8 and 9, during the pendency of proceedings, and thus, they have became the representatives of interest of judgment debtors 1 to 7.

4. Asserting that the decree holders 10 and 11 are in possession of suit A and B Schedule properties, in respect of which, the trial court granted perpetual injunction in O.S. No. 76 of 2003, and alleging that the judgment debtors 8 and 9 are interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment, E.P. No. 31 of 2019 was filed on 11.09.2019, under Order 21, Rule 32 read with Section 151 of CPC., seeking execution of the decree, and for attachment of their properties i.e., schedule C and D properties.

5. The trial court passed the following order dated 13.11.2019:

"Issue notices to JDRs 8 and 9, and also issue attachment warrant in respect of E.P. Schedule property on process. Call on 16.12.2019."

6. Aggrieved by the attachment warrant, petitioners herein, who are judgment debtors 8 and 9, filed the present revision.

7. In the cause title, respondents 1 to 9 and 12 to 18 are stated as not necessary parties to the revision.

8. As per the case of the petitioners, there is delay of 33 days in filing the revision and, therefore, filed I.A. No. 1 of 2020 in CRP. No. 1030 of 2020, seeking to condone the said delay. Respondents 10 and 11/decree holders 10 and 11, filed counter affidavit opposing the application. The petitioners filed additional affidavit, and the respondents 10 and 11 also filed additional counter affidavit.

9. First, I shall deal with the application seeking to condone the delay.

10. The case of the petitioners, as stated in the affidavit filed in support of the interlocutory application and in the additional affidavit, is that the execution petition was filed on 11.09.2019, and the trial court by the impugned order, directed issuance of warrant of attachment of C and D schedule properties, which are E.P. schedule properties, and that they entered appearance and filed vakalat on 16.12.2019. It is stated that they filed C.A. No. 907 of 2020 on 18.09.2020, and copy was made ready on 19.09.2020, and that when they obtained a certified copy of the order, they noticed that their counsel's name was shown in the order copy, as if they contested the E.P., which is not correct. Therefore, they counted the delay of 33 days from the date of their knowledge i.e., 19.09.2020. It is stated that by abundant caution they filed the present interlocutory application seeking to condone the delay in filing the revision, which is otherwise technically not required.

11. It is further stated that due Covid - 19 pandemic situation, the work of the lower court is obstructed and, therefore, they sought to condone the delay.

12. Respondents 10 and 11 filed a detailed counter affidavit and additional counter affidavit to the delay condonation application, disputing the averments made by the petitioners with regard to the merits of the case. With regard to dela