Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K.LAKSHMAN
Baltha Lingaiah – Appellant
Versus
Boda Ramachandra Reddy – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. filing for condonation of delay in ex parte judgment. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. options available to defendants after ex parte decree. (Para 5 , 11 , 12 , 19) |
| 3. arguments regarding negligence and proper procedure emphasized by both parties. (Para 7) |
| 4. arguments concerning maintainability of revision. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. discussion of the maintainability of petitions and alternative remedies available. (Para 13) |
| 6. legal standards regarding appeals and order ix rule 13. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 7. court concludes that revision is not maintainable and allows for appeal. (Para 20) |
| 8. conclusion and dismissal of the revision. (Para 21) |
ORDER :
K. LAKSHMAN, J.
Heard Sri P. Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. P. Sathwik Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Ghanshyamdas Mandhani, learned counsel representing Mr.Aditya Mandhani, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1. With the consent of both the learned counsel, this CRP is disposed of at the admission stage.
2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 29.01.2025 passed in I.A. No. 433 of 2023 in O.S. No. 21 of 2018 by th
The court held that a revision under Article 227 is not maintainable when an alternative remedy of appeal is available following the dismissal of an application for condonation of delay under the Lim....
Setting aside ex-parte decree – Filing of application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC as well as filing of appeal under Section 96(2) of CPC against ex-parte decree are concurrent remedies available to a ....
Dismissal of Limitation Act Section 5 petitions is revisable, not appealable; no merger with Order IX Rule 13 CPC orders.
The sufficiency of the cause for delay is the primary criterion for condoning delay under the Limitation Act, not merely the length of the delay.
The rejection of applications for condonation of delay in filing petitions under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC leads to the dismissal of the main petitions, making them appealable under Order XLIII Rule 1(d....
Orders dismissing Section 5 Limitation Act petitions are not appealable; must be challenged via revision, independent of restoration applications.
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
