Back
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
SRI SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J
MARRI LAKSHMI NARAYANA REDDY – Appellant
Versus
Annapareddy Lakshmi Narasamma – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. filing delay due to illness. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. consideration of substantial justice. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. court's discretion to condone delay. (Para 12 , 14 , 17 , 19) |
| 4. guidelines for condoning delay. (Para 16 , 18) |
| 5. outcome of the revision petition. (Para 20 , 21) |
ORDER
Defendant in the suit filed the above civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against order, dated 30.01.2020 passed in I.A.No.894 of 2019 in O.S.No.213 of 2016 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli.
2. Plaintiffs filed O.S.No.213 of 2016 against the defendant seeking partition of the suit schedule properties.
3. The defendant on receipt of summons got filed vakalat. However, he did not file written statement. Since written statement was not filed within time, defendant was set ex parte on 18.10.2016 and eventually ex parte decree was passed on 02.11.2016. On coming to know the same, petitioner filed I.A.No.894 of 2019 on 09.02.2017 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 69 days in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree, dated 02.11.2016.
4. Along with I.A.No.894 of 2019, petitioner also filed I.A.No.
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
