Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
RENUKA YARA
Gurram Sairam – Appellant
Versus
Siddi Vinayaka RCC Pipes Industry – Respondent
ORDER :
RENUKA YARA, J.
1. Heard Mr. V. Hanmanth Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant and Mr. K. Sreenivas, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/plaintiff. Perused the record.
2. The Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 22.07.2024 passed in I.A.No.407 of 2024 in O.S.No.51 of 2022 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Shadnagar, wherein, a petition filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone delay of 1925 days in filing a petition under Order IX Rule 7 of CPC to set aside the ex-parte order passed against the revision petitioner, has been dismissed.
3. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1 filed the suit in O.S.No.159 of 2018 on the file of Senior Civil Judge at Mahabubnagar against the revision petitioner and respondent No.2 seeking specific performance of Agreement of sale, dated 05.09.2016 and to declare the registered sale deed dated 26.05.2018 vide document No.8657 of 2018 executed by the revision petitioner in favour of the respondent No.2 as null and void with respect to the suit schedule land consisting of Ac.2.15 Gts., in Sy.No.168/E situated at Akuthotapally Village of Amangal Mandal, R.R.District (previously Ma
The court clarified that the time frame for filing written statements under Order VIII Rule 1 is directory, allowing for extensions in exceptional circumstances, emphasizing parties' responsibility i....
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 main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to show sufficient cause for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
The court ruled that the limitation for filing a written statement is strict and can only be extended in exceptional circumstances, which were not present in this case.
The court has the power to set aside an ex parte order under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, but lack of a valid reason for delay and failure to take immediate action may not constitute sufficient caus....
A party's knowledge of a lawsuit does not negate the right to challenge an ex-parte decree if sufficient cause for delay in filing is shown, and interlocutory evidence does not require strict proof.
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
