Back
P. SREE SUDHA
M. Jayanthi – Appellant
Versus
B. Arjun Reddy Died – Respondent
ORDER :
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 04.12.2020 passed in I.A.No.1895 of 2019 in ASSR No.9285 of 2019 on the file of the learned XV Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally, the petitioner herein preferred this revision petition.
2. The petitioner is the defendant and the respondents herein are the plaintiffs. The petitioner herein filed an application under Order 41 Rule 3 CPC before the trial Court seeking to condone the delay of 779 days in filing the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 13.10.2017 passed in O.S.No.491 of 2003 on the file of the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District. The trial Court after considering the arguments of both the counsel at length, dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner herein preferred this revision.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner herein is the defendant in the suit filed by B. Arjun Reddy in O.S.No.491 of 2003 for specific performance. During the pendency of the proceedings in the suit B.Arjun Reddy died and his legal representatives-wife and children were brought on record as Plaintiff Nos.2 to 6 in the suit and finally the suit
The court emphasized the importance of explaining delays and the obligation of parties to actively participate in legal proceedings.
The court emphasized that mere reliance on counsel does not justify inordinate delay in filing an appeal; sufficient cause must be shown by the appellant.
The court held that mere reliance on counsel does not excuse delay in litigation; sufficient cause must be demonstrated for each day of delay to condone it.
Point of law: applicant, against whom an order is made under sub-rule (2) rule 105 or the opposite party against whom an order is passed ex-parte under sub-rule (3) of that rule or under sub-rule (1)....
The need for valid reasons for delay in condonation petitions and the lack of bona fides in explanations for delay influenced the court's decision.
Failure to demonstrate sufficient cause for delay in setting aside an ex parte decree results in dismissal of the application, emphasizing diligence and valid service of summons.
The burden of proving sufficient cause for delay lies with the party seeking condonation. Negligence, inaction, or lack of bona fide on the part of the applicant may not justify condoning the delay.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
