The court underscored the importance of considering the humanitarian aspects in legal proceedings, especially for litigants from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds, allowing for the condonation of delay in legal filings.

ORDER :

Narsing Rao Nandikonda, J.

Since both the Civil Revision Petitions have been filed by the same petitioner, though arising out of different suits, and as the pleadings in both the revisions are similar, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order.

2. C.R.P.No.2265 of 2019 is filed seeking to set aside the Order dated 14.11.2018 in I.A.No.1028 of 2017 in O.S.No.186 of 2014 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Huzurabad.

3. C.R.P.No.1796 of 2019 is filed seeking to set aside the Order dated 14.11.2018 in I.A.No.1030 of 2017 in O.S.No.187 of 2014 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Huzurabad.

4. Heard Mr.Bethi Venkateshwarlu, learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant in C.R.P.No.2265 & 1796 of 2019 and Mr.N.Janardhan Reddy, learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff in the same cases. Perused the record.

For the sake of convenience and clarity, the parties herein shall be referred to, as they are arrayed before the trial Court.

5. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner herein is the defendant in C.R.P.No.2265 & 1796 of 2019, respective respondent/plaintiff filed respective suit against the defendant herein for perpetual injunction, which were decreed on 11.08.2015.

6. The petitioner is the defendant in C.R.P. Nos. 2265 and 1796 of 2019. The respective respondents/plaintiffs filed separate suits against the petitioner/defendant seeking perpetual injunctions to restrain the petitioner/defendant and the legal heirs etc., from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. The trial Court decreed the suits in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs on 11.08.2015, granting the requested injunctions.

7. The petitioner/defendant, dissatisfied with the ex-parte decrees dated 11.08.2015 in O.S.No.186 and 187 of 2014, filed I.A.No.1028 of 2017 in O.S.No.186 of 2014 and I.A.No.1030 of 2017 in O.S.No.187 of 2014 under Order IX Rule 13 CPC and under Section 5 of Limitation Act seeking the trial Court to condone the delay of 689 days in filing the respective petitions and to set-aside the decree in O.S.Nos.186 and 187 of 2014, after hearing both sides, the trial Court opined that the petitioner/defendant failed to explain the reason for condoning the delay of 689 days and dismissed the respective Interlocutory Applications.

8. Assailing the same, the petitioner/defendant filed C.R.P. Nos. 2265 and 1796 of 2019 seeking to set-aside the Orders dated 14.11.2018 in I.A.No.1028 of 2017 in O.S.No.186 of 2014 and I.A.No.1030 of 2017 in O.S.No.187 of 2014 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Huzurabad, which were passed against her on the ground that she engaged the counsel and he assured that he will look after the matter but unfortunately, she being an illiterate and innocent village lady and she does not have any legal knowledge as to the legal proceedings and she has two tender aged children, as such she could not proceed with the case and the trial Court came to wrong conclusion that the petitioner/defendant failed to assign cogent reasons to condone the delay of 689 days in filing the I.A.Nos.1029 & 1030 of 2017 to set-aside the ex-parte decrees dated 11.08.2015 in O.S.Nos.186 and 187 of 2014.

9. It is further contended that the petitioner is in possession and cultivation of the suit schedule lands, having lawfully purchased the same from the rightful owner under a registered sale deed, and that such possession and cultivation are well within the knowledge of the entire village.

10. It is further contended that, for the aforesaid reasons, she