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 Limitation Act.

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 the learned Senior Civil Judge – cum – Assistant Sessions Judge, at Peddapalli. Vide aforesaid order, learned trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioners filed under Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT , 1963, to condone the delay of 186 days in filing an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC to set aside the exparte judgment and decree dated 27.12.2022.

Facts of the Case:-

3. 1^st respondent/plaintiff had filed a suit in O.S.No.21 of2018 against the petitioners and respondents 2 to 6 herein for partition, recovery of possession and also to declare registered documents as null and void. The said suit was decreed on 27.12.2022. It is an exparte decree. Therefore, the petitioners herein/defendants 6 to 9 filed an application under Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT , to condone the delay of 186 days from 28.01.2023 to 31.07.2023 in filing an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC to set aside the said judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.21 of 2018.

4. 1^st respondent/plaintiff had filed counter opposing the said application contending that it is the duty of the party to be vigilant in knowing the proceedings of the Court and contesting the matter. But the petitioners herein kept silent all these years under the guise of ill-health which clearly shows gross negligence on their part. Though there is service of notice on the 2^nd petitioner herein/Defendant No.7 through1^st petitioner herein/defendant No.6 and having knowledge of the proceedings, he did not approach the Court. Though the petitioners 3 and 4 herein/Defendant Nos.8 and 9 are having knowledge about service of summons through publication in Nava Telangana Daily Newspaper, Peddapally District Edition, they did not appear before the Court. The petitioner No.4 herein/9^th defendant is residing in Hyderabad more than ten years and having knowledge of the publication of summons in the aforesaid daily newspaper.The summons sent to the defendant No.7 to 9 on the addresses mentioned in the gift deed, which was executed by the defendant No.6 in favour of the defendant No.7 to 9. Since all the petitioners herein did not appear before the Court, the trial Court vide order dated 27.12.2022 passed an ex parte judgment and decree. The medical prescriptions and reports filed by the petitioner No.1/Defendant No.6 are false and created. Despite granting sufficient time by the trial Court, the petitioners herein failed to appear before the Court to contest the suit. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the petition.

5. Vide order dated 27.12.2022, learned trial Court dismissed the application holding that the summons sent to the defendant No.7 to 9 on the addresses mentioned in the gift deed, which was executed by the defendant No.6 in favour of the petitioners herein/defendant Nos.7 to 9. The case record cl