Point of Law : Willful default, negligent attitude or casual approach in approaching the Court is not expected to be entertained.

ORDER :

Challenge in this Civil Revision Petition is the order rendered by the Court of Principal District Judge, Karimnagar, in I.A.No.822 of 2015 in un-registered Appeal Suit, dated 19.01.2016.

2. Heard the submission of Sri Y. Ashok Raj, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, as well as Ms. P.V.V.B. Rajeswari, who argued on behalf of Sri K. Rajanna, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

3. The suit in O.S.No.574 of 2005, in which the revision petitioner herein was arrayed as Defendant No.1, was decreed by the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, on 27.11.2013. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree in the said suit, the revision petitioner preferred appeal with a delay of 546 days. A separate application vide I.A.No.822 of 2015 was filed under Order 41 Rule 3-A C.P.C. r/w. Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking to condone the said delay. The Court of Principal District Judge, Karimnagar, through the impugned order dated 19.01.2016 dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner is before this Court.

4. Thus, in the factual scenario as narrated above, the point that emerges for determination is :

Whether there exists any infirmity in the order of the Court of Principal District Judge, Karimnagar, by which the delay, as sought for, is not condoned, as contended by the revision petitioner herein.

5. Making his submission, learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the revision petitioner had got good grounds to succeed in the suit itself and, indeed, the suit schedule property belongs to the revision petitioner and respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are plaintiffs to the suit, have got neither title nor possession over the said property, but, as the revision petitioner, who is defendant No.1 to the suit, could not pursue the matter and adduce evidence, a decree was passed against him. He further submits that aggrieved by the said judgment and decree rendered by the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, in O.S.No.574 of 2005, dated 27.11.2013, the revision petitioner preferred an appeal, but with a delay of around 500 days and sufficient reasons were shown as to why the appeal could not be preferred within time. But, without considering the grounds urged and the pleas taken by the revision petitioner, the Principal District Judge, Karimnagar, dismissed the said application filed for condonation of delay, thereby deprived the right of the revision petitioner in challenging the judgment and decree dated 27.11.2013 in O.S.No.574 of 2005 and, therefore, the revision petitioner approached this Court for justice.

6. Vehemently opposing the submissions made by learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the arguing counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submitted that the revision petitioner was never diligent in prosecuting the matter and, indeed, he did not even evince proper interest in the suit proceedings and the documents produced before this Court establishes the same. The learned counsel contended that the revision petitioner, who is Defendant No.1 in the suit, during the course of trial proceedings failed to cross-examine PW.1 in spite of granting several adjournments and, therefore, the evidence of PW.1 was closed and thereafter, the matter was posted for evidence on defendants’ side. The revision petitioner, who is defendant No.1 to the suit, was ordered to adduce evidence and facilitating him, the suit was adjourned time to time for about 30 times within a span of two years, but the revision petitioner never came forward to adduce evidence and, as such, by closing his evidence, the matter was posted for arguments and, thereafter the suit was disposed of on merits. Learned counsel further contended that the revision petitioner has concocted a false story seeking for condonation of delay and the said story is untrue and unbelievable and, indeed, the revision petitioner was present in his village itself and he even participated in the General Elections