Back
A. SANTHOSH REDDY
G. Lingamma – Appellant
Versus
P. Vivekananda Reddy – Respondent
ORDER :
This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 22.04.2016 in I.A.No.377 of 2011 in O.S.No.94 of 2010, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner-defendant No.4 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short, 'CPC') seeking to condone the delay of 235 days in filing the petition under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, was dismissed.
2. Heard Mr. V.Ravi Kiran Rao, learned senior counsel, representing Mr. V.Rohit, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. Narashima Chari, learned counsel for respondent No.1. Perused the record.
3. The first respondent herein/plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.94 of 2010 against respondent Nos.2 to 4/defendants 1 to 3 and revision petitioner herein/defendant No.4 for partition of the suit schedule properties. Suit summons were served on defendant Nos.1 to 3 and the summons against defendant No.4 were returned unserved, as refused. Thereafter, ex parte judgment and decree was passed on 20.12.2010. Respondent No.1 filed an application for appointment of Advocate-Commissioner in the final decree petition. Immediately, the revision
The court emphasized that the sufficiency of the cause for delay, rather than its length, is the key criterion for condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of advancing substantial justice over procedural law and the application of a liberal approach in considering the condonation of del....
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
