IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that delays in filing petitions can be condoned if sufficient cause is shown, emphasizing the importance of adjudicating cases on their merits.

ORDER :

K. SUJANA, J.

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the revision petitioners aggrieved by the order, dated 16.06.2023 passed in I.A.No.506 of 2022 in O.S.No.38 of 2012 by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Mahabubnagar.

2. I.A.No.506 of 2022 in O.S.No.38 of 2012 is filed by the revision petitioners/defendant Nos.5 and 6 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 151 of CPC, seeking the Court to condone the delay of 2100 days in filing a petition in order to set aside the ex-parte preliminary decree dated 15.12.2016 passed in O.S.No.38 of 2012 enabling the petitioners/defendant Nos.5 and 6 to put forth their defense and cross-examine the PW-1 for fair disposal of the case on merits.

3. The contention of the petitioners/defendant Nos.5 and 6 in I.A.No.506 of 2022 in O.S.No.38 of 2012 is that respondent No.1/plaintiff conspired with other respondents filed a false, vauge, fabricated and vexatious partition suit against the petitioners and others. Respondent No.1/plaintiff obtained ex-parte preliminary decree in her favour without their knowledge. The petitioners/defendant Nos.5 and 6 further claimed that respondent No.1/plaintiff with malicious intent had deliberately provided an incorrect address for the petitioners/defendant Nos.5 and 6 in the suit solely for the purpose of securing an ex-parte decree without their involvement. It is further submitted that the earlier counsel on record failed to appear before the Court and he failed to inform regarding the progress of the case including the issuance of the ex-parte preliminary decree on 15.12.2016. The petitioners/defendant Nos.5 and 6 were under the belief that the suit was still pending. However, on 15.09.2022, respondent No.1/plaintiff, along with her associates, visited the properties of the petitioners and informed them about the Court decree, as such, they came to know about the ex-parte preliminary decree which was passed on 15.12.2016 and subsequent final decree petitions filed in I.A.No.128 of 2017 and I.A.No.129 of 2017. The petitioners further submit that due to Covid-19 pandemic, lockdown measures and other circumstances prevailing in the State, they were unable to appear before the Court. Therefore, they prayed the Court to set aside the ex-parte preliminary decree dated 15.12.2016 and prayed to condone the delay of 2100 days.

4. The respondent No.1/plaintiff filed the counter affidavit and objected to allow the petition stating that the petitioners have indeed engaged an advocate to represent them in the case. The petitioners’ advocate was negligent in representing their case and such negligence does not provide grounds for condoning a delay of 2100 days which amounts to approximately 6 years. The petitioners by not actively contesting the proceedings, have willfully and deliberately neglected their right to representation. Therefore, respondent No.1/plaintiff prayed the Court to dismiss the petition.

5. After hearing both sides and considering the averments made in the petition and in the counter affidavit, the trial Court dismissed the petition stating that there are no grounds to condone the delay of 2100 days. Aggrieved by the same, the present CRP is filed by the petitioners/defendant Nos.5 and 6.

6. Heard Sri Girija Shanker Sharma, learned counsel for the revision petitioners, and Sri Pottigari Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

7. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners/defendant Nos.5 and 6 submits that the trial Court without considering the averments made in the petition had erroneously dismissed the petition and the trial Court also failed to appreciate the legal preposition and submissions made by the petitioners/defendant Nos.5 and 6. They filed the petition from the date of acknowledgment of the ex-parte preliminary decree and there is no need to file the petition under Section 5 of Limitation act and only on abundant caution the petitioners/defendant Nos.5 and 6 filed I.A.No.506 of 2022 to condon