IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the importance of making efforts for an amicable settlement in family partition suits and applied a liberal approach while dealing with the application for condonation of delay under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act.

JUDGMENT

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the order dtd. 22/12/2021 passed in I.A.No.20 of 2021 in O.S.No.4 of 2018 on the file of Senior Civil Judge at Jangaon, whereunder the petition filed by the revision petitioners to condone the delay of 854 days in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree passed in O.S.No. 4 of 2018 was dismissed.

2. Heard Sri A.Venkatesh, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and Sri D.V.Chalapathi Rao, the learned Counsel for the respondent.

3. The learned Senior Counsel for the revision petitioners submits that the respondent herein filed a suit in O.S.No.4 of 2018 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon for partition and separate possession against the petitioners herein/defendants 1 to 6 on the premise that the plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 to 6 are the children of defendant No.1 and Goli Soma Reddy and the said Goli Soma Reddy during his life acquired suit schedule property and upon his death on 4/12/2012 the suit schedule properties were devolved upon the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 6 and therefore the respondent filed the suit for partition and separate possession of the same contending that each of them are entitled for 1/7th share.

4. The learned Senior Counsel for the revision petitioners submits that subsequent to filing of the suit, though the respondent is not entitled to any share, efforts were made to resolve the issue to maintain good relationship and therefore the petitioners did not appear before the Court below and not filed written statement hoping that the issue would be resolved and meanwhile Court below decreed the suit ex parte on 29/9/2018.

5. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners further submits that even after passing the preliminary decree the petitioners made efforts to resolve the issue. Meanwhile the respondent/plaintiff filed applications in I.A.Nos.130 and 131 of 2019 for passing final decree and for appointment of Advocate Commissioner respectively. As the respondent/plaintiff did not choose to come forward to settle the issue amicably, the petitioners filed in I.A.No.20 of 2021 in O.S.No.4 of 2018 under Sec. 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay of 854 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree and the same was dismissed through the impugned order.

6. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners further submits that though the delay was sufficiently explained in the affidavit the Court below erroneously dismissed the condone delay petition filed by the petitioners. The partition suit is stands on a different pedestal as the parties are closely related and any stand/sub stand being taken by other parties would definitely precipitate the issue and cause damage to the family and the cordial relationship among the family members. Further when the mother of the parties is still alive, every effort is being made by the parties to resolve the issue amicably and therefore the Court below ought to have accepted the explanation of the petitioners about the efforts for compromise. Even after receipt of summons in the suit, the petitioners made efforts to resolve the issue as per the advice of the common relatives as well as well-wishers and it would definitely take more time and the relationship between the parties is not only close but also delicate apart from there being some raised tempers among the parties. Once the written statement is filed by the parties by denying the stand of the plaintiff and sort any other stand the very efforts being put up by the petitioners and the common relatives would become futile and there could not be any possibility amicable settlement. The written statement was not filed taking a stand only with a good intention to avoid any kind of strained relationship between the parties and the Court below without appreciating the same erroneously dismissed the interlocutory application and requested to allow the Civil Rev