Back
2025 Supreme(Telangana) 603
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
G. RADHA RANI, J.
Smt. J. Vasantha - Appellant
Vs.
Syed Kareemuddin - Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No. 953 of 2021
Decided On : 15-04-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : VENKATA RANGADAS KANURI
For the Respondent: A KESHAVA REDDY
The law of limitation is strictly enforced, requiring sufficient cause for any delay in filing applications, with courts lacking discretion to extend limitation periods on equitable grounds.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order IX Rule 13 - Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 - Civil Revision Petition against dismissal of application to set aside ex-parte decree - The plaintiff sought cancellation of sale deeds, claiming urgency for financial needs - The defendant failed to show sufficient cause for delay in filing the application to set aside the decree - The trial court found no merit in the application, leading to dismissal. (Paras 1-20)
(B) Limitation - The law of limitation is strict and must be adhered to, with courts having no power to extend it on equitable grounds - Sufficient cause must be shown for condoning any delay. (Paras 11-19)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit to cancel two sale deeds concerning a property, claiming urgency for financial needs. The defendant No.4 sought to set aside an ex-parte decree but failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in her application.
Findings of Court:
The trial court dismissed the application for lack of sufficient cause and upheld the ex-parte decree.
Issues: The main issues were whether the defendant No.4 provided sufficient cause for the delay in filing her application and whether the trial court erred in dismissing her petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the law of limitation must be strictly applied, and the petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay, leading to the dismissal of her application.
Result: Civil Revision Petition dismissed.
ORDER :
1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner-defendant No.4 aggrieved by the order dated 30.04.2021 passed in I.A.No.490 of 2019 in O.S.No.362 of 2013 by the learned I Additional District Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit for cancellation of registered sale deed document No.4161 of 2001 dated 08.06.2001 and to declare the registered sale deed document No.7785 of 2005 dated 13.07.2005 as null and void in respect of the land in Survey No.586 to an extent of Ac.3-21 guntas situated at Nadergul Revenue Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Rangareddy District.
3. The case of the plaintiff was that he intended to sell the suit schedule property to meet his urgent financial necessities. The defendant No.1 offered and agreed to purchase the same for a total sale consideration of Rs.10,05,000/- and they entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on 08.06.2001. The defendant No.1 paid Rs.7,00,000/- and issued a post dated cheque for Rs.3,05,000/-. On the same day, the defendant No.1 got executed a registered sale deed in favor of defendant No.2 (wife of defendant No.1). In view of a suit filed by one of his family members vide O.S.No.783 of 2001 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar for perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property, the defendant No.1 demanded the plaintiff for refund of the sale consideration. Due to his coercion, the plaintiff repaid Rs.5,00,000/- to the defendant No.1 on 27.02.2007. The defendant No.1 executed a receipt, but however in the receipt mentioned the same as hand loan. The defendant No.1 executed an undertaking on 05.02.2010 that on receipt of the balance amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, he would execute a deed of cancellation of registered sale deed. The plaintiff tendered Rs.2,00,000/- to defendants 1 and 2 and asked them to execute the registered deed of cancellation, but they denied the same. The plaintiff further averred that defendant No.1 got executed a registered sale deed dated 13.07.2005 through defendant No.2 in favor of defendants 3 to 5, as such, filed the suit seeking the above reliefs.
4. The defendants 1 to 5 remained ex-parte.
5. An ex-parte decree was passed on 25.03.2019 cancelling the registered sale deed dated 08.06.2001 and declaring the registered sale deed dated 13.07.2005 as null and void. Permanent injunction was also granted restraining the defendants from alienating the suit schedule property to third parties. Subsequently, the defendant No.4 filed a petition under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 of CPC to set aside the ex-parte decree passed in O.S.No.362 of 2013 on 19.07.2019. As there was a delay of 85 days in filing the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree, the defendant No.4 filed I.A.No.490 of 2019 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the said delay.
6. In the affidavit filed along with the application, the defendant No.4 contended that the defendants 1 and 2 had executed a registered sale deed dated 13.07.2005 and delivered the physical possession of the suit schedule property to her and she was in possession and enjoyment of the same since then. She had converted the said property from agriculture to non-agriculture use and obtained a lay out from the Gram Panchayat by laying the roads, etc., and alienated the plots in favor of various purchasers and some of the plot owners had also constructed compound wall to protect the same from encroachers. Having knowledge of the same, the plaintiff with a malafide intention, filed the above suit for cancellation of the registered sale deeds only with a view to extract money in view of hike in prices in and over the suit schedule property. As on the date of filing of the suit, the entire suit schedule property was alienated by laying plots through registered sale deeds and the purchasers were in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. She furt
