THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI I.A.No.1 of 2025 in/and CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 175/2025

COMMON ORDER :

Heard Sri Deva Deepak Anirudh Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The respondent/plaintiff filed O.S.No.58 of 2012 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Yellamanchili, seeking recovery of Rs.9,31,968/- from the petitioner/defendant. The suit was decreed by judgment and decree dated 14.09.2015.

3. The respondent/decree holder filed E.P.No.57 of 2016 before the learned execution Court, seeking attachment and sale of the E.P. schedule property under Order 21 Rules 54, 64, and 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for execution of the decree. The judgment debtor/defendant filed objections/counter affidavit opposing the execution. After considering the submissions of both parties, the execution court allowed the E.P. by order dated 17.06.2022.

4. Challenging the order dated 17.06.2022, the petitioner/judgment debtor has filed the present Civil Revision Petition along with I.A.No.1 of 2025, seeking condonation of a delay of 843 days.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the order dated 17.06.2022, the sale was conducted and a sale certificate was issued on 13.08.2024. The execution proceedings thus terminated. It is also mentioned in paragraph 8 of the memorandum of the Civil Revision Petition.

6. I have considered the affidavit filed in I.A.No.1 of 2025 for condonation of delay. The reason stated for the delay is “My counsel has died after the termination of the E.P., and I am not aware of the procedural limitations and the case file is also misplaced and could not be traced out. The C.R.P. is filed on 06.01.2025. In result, there is a delay of 843 days in filing the C.R.P. the delay has occurred due to miscalculation.”

7. The explanation provided by the petitioner does not inspire confidence and is also not sufficient. With respect to delay in challenging the order dated 17.06.2022, the death of the counsel is after termination of E.P., which terminated on 13.08.2024. The additional cause that the case file was misplaced and could not be traced appears to be an afterthought. General and vague averments have been made without precision i.e., as to when file was traced or what is the miscalculation of limitation period. Under these circumstances, as also considering the subsequent developments, issuance of the sale certificate and the closure of the execution proceedings, there is no sufficient cause to condone the delay of 843 days.

8. I.A. No. 1 of 2025 is dismissed.

9. C.R.P.No.175 of 2025 is also dismissed as barred by limitation.

No order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed.

____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J Date :13.02.2025.

RPD.

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI (DISMISSED)

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 175 OF 2025 Date :13.02.2025 RPD.