Point of Law: Conduct, behaviour and attitude relating to inaction/negligence by the appellant disentitle him to seek discretionary relief.

ORDER :

P.Naveen Rao, J.

Heard Sri Dammalapati Srinivas learned senior counsel representing Sri Satyanarayana Rao Adiraju learned counsel for appellant, Sri Venkatadri Raju learned counsel for first respondent, Sri S.Niranjan Reddy learned senior counsel representing Sri Naresh Reddy learned counsel for second respondent and Sri B.Sree Hari learned counsel for third respondent.

2. This is an application filed to condone the delay of 1691 days in preferring appeal against the judgment and decree dated 28.4.2015 in O.S. No. 69 of 2003 on the file of XIII Additional chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Petitioner/appellant is the plaintiff No.2 in O S No. 69 of 2003. The third respondent is plaintiff No.1 and respondents 1 and 2 are defendants 1 and 2 to the suit.

3. From the pleadings, to the extent relevant, the timeline of the litigant leading to this application is noted hereunder. Respondent no.3 claims that late Shapoorji Chenoy was the owner of the suit schedule property (Acs.22.05 guntas) and she has succeeded to the said property. The suit schedule property is Municipal House bearing No. 1-2-630, Elchibegguda, Lower Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. It forms part of Sy.Nos.157/1 to 3, 158/1 & 2, 159 and 159/1 of Bakaram village, co-related to T.S.No.27, Block-B, Ward No.76 of Bakaram village. The suit schedule property was leased out in perpetuity by late Shapoorji Chenoy to Dewan Bahadoor Ramgopal Mills Limited (DBR Mills) for the purpose of running Textile Mills. According to DBR Mills, it has also purchased Acs.4.00 guntas of adjacent land. In the said manner, it has acquired in all Acs.26.05 guntas of land. In the said land, DBR Mills was established.

4. Alleging that several terms of lease agreement were violated by the lease holder resulting in lease becoming inoperative and claiming that plaintiff is entitled to recovery of possession, to recover arrears of rent and damages, legal proceedings were set in motion and plaintiff no.1 instituted O.S.No.1201 of 1995, renumbered as O.S.No.69 of 2003 on the file of XIII Additional chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, praying to grant decree of eviction of defendant No. 1 from the leased property and to pay damages. On 03.12.1998, the appellant herein entered into agreement of sale with the respondent no.3 herein in respect of the suit schedule property. Thereafter, the appellant impleaded as plaintiff no.2. DBR Mills Employees Union was later impleaded as Defendant No.2 to the suit.

5. While so, plaintiffs 1 and 2 and first defendant sought to resolve the inter se dispute and entered into compromise on 08.03.1999. In terms of this compromise, appellant gets full rights on Acs.6.00 out of suit schedule land and 1st respondent owns remaining land of Acs.16.00. The compromise memo was filed into the Court through I.A.No.359 of 1999. Second defendant filed an affidavit seeking leave of the Court to allow him to join as a party to the compromise memo and agreeing to record the compromise and to pass judgment in terms thereof.

6. Though, initially agreed to resolve the dispute amicably and entered into compromise when matter was considered by the trial Court to record the compromise and to render judgment, the first respondent opposed the compromise by contending that there was huge delay in presenting the compromise memo causing financial drain and sought to record fresh compromise before an Arbitrator. Over-ruling the objection of 1st respondent taking recourse to Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC, by judgment dated 03.04.2003, the Trial Court allowed I.A.No.359 of 1999 and decreed the suit in terms of the compromise. The Trial Court also directed to pay the Court fee if any required, as per the terms of compromise.

7. The respondent no.1 filed CCCA No. 350 of 2003 before Hon’ble High Court challenging the compromise Decree dated 3.4.2003. The respondent No. 2 herein also preferred CCCA No. 74 of 2004. CCCA No. 329 of 2003 and CCCA No. 131 of 2004 were filed by third parties. All t