The judgment emphasizes the importance of diligence in exercising legal rights and the need for a reasonable explanation for delay in seeking remedy within the statutory period.

ORDER :

1. This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff, challenging the order, dated 10.02.2022, passed in I.A.No.421 of 2020 in A.S.(SR) No.2495 of 2020, by the XVI Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Malkajgiri, whereby, the subject I.A.No.421 of 2020 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act by the petitioner/plaintiff to condone the delay of 541 days in filing the subject A.S.(SR) No.2495 of 2020, was dismissed.

2. Heard the submissions of Sri Police Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff, Sri Y.Satya Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent/defendant and perused the record.

3. The petitioner/plaintiff filed O.S.No.174 of 2016 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District against the respondent/defendant seeking perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. The respondent/defendant contested the said suit. The trial Court dismissed the said suit on merits, vide judgment and decree, dated 01.04.2019. Challenging the said judgment and decree, the petitioner/plaintiff preferred an appeal in A.S.(SR) No.2495 of 2020 before the Court below along with the subject I.A.No.421 of 2020 seeking to condone the delay of 541 days in preferring the said appeal. The Court below, after hearing both sides, refused to condone the delay and dismissed the subject application, vide impugned order, dated 10.02.2022. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/plaintiff preferred this Civil Revision Petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff would contend that the Court below gravely erred in dismissing the subject I.A.No.421 of 2020. The judgment in O.S.No.174 of 2016 was pronounced by the trial Court on 01.04.2019. A copy application was filed to obtain certified copy of the judgment on 09.04.2019 and the same was complied on 27.04.2019. At the time of disposal of the subject suit, the petitioner/plaintiff was working as Forest Divisional Officer, Nagarjunasagar, and he retired from service in the month of May, 2020. Thereafter, the petitioner/plaintiff was preoccupied with his work to settle his retirement benefits etc., and could not visit the suit schedule property. In the meantime, COVID-19 pandemic situation intervened and the Courts did not function for some days. During the absence of the petitioner/plaintiff, the respondent/defendant tried to make constructions over the suit schedule property on 22.10.2020. Protesting the same, the petitioner/plaintiff lodged a complaint before Municipal authorities and made attempts to settle the matter with the respondent/defendant before elders. However, the respondent/ defendant refused to settle the matter on 19.11.2020, which constrained the petitioner/plaintiff to file the subject unregistered appeal before the Court below along with the subject I.A.No.421 of 2020 seeking to condone delay of 541 days in preferring the appeal. The delay is neither willful nor wanton. The subject suit was dismissed on technical grounds. There are fair chances of success of the petitioner/plaintiff in the subject unregistered appeal. If delay is not condoned, irreparable loss would ensue to the petitioner/plaintiff and ultimately prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition as prayed for.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/ defendant would contend that there are laches on the part of the petitioner/plaintiff in pursuing the matter. No compromise talks were held with regard to the suit schedule property, as contended by the petitioner/plaintiff. The petitioner/plaintiff failed to properly explain the inordinate delay of 541 days in filing the subject unregistered appeal before the Court below. The suit was dismissed on 01.04.2019 and the petitioner/plaintiff retired from service in the month of May, 2020, i.e., after about one year. There is no proper explanation as to what prevented the petitioner/plaintiff