ORDER:

This revision petition is preferred by the revision petitioner challenging the order dated 19.06.2024 passed in IA.No.350 of 2024 in CMA.No.5 of 2024 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Vikarabad District.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the revision petitioner filed IA.No.350 of 2024 under Section 151 of CPC to de-number CMA.No.5 of 2024 contending that the same is not maintainable in the absence of appropriate application to condone the abnormal delay in filing the same, and averring that despite being aware of the orders passed in IA No.1618 of 2019 dated 29.03.2023, CMA.No.254 of 2023 was filed with malicious intent to harass the petitioner through frivolous litigation, causing unnecessary delay and wasting over a year without separating the share of the property of petitioner. Further, that after the dismissal of the said CMA., the respondents filed CMA.No.5 of 2024 without condoning the inordinate delay, misleading the Court and obtaining a numbered filing without submitting a supporting application to condone the delay, thereby, abusing the legal process with malafide intentions, rendering the petition non-maintainable without condoning the delay. After hearing both sides, the appellate Court dismissed the said IA., aggrieved thereby, this revision petition is filed.

3. Heard Sri B.Venkateshwar Rao, learned counsel for revision petitioner, and Sri I.Ramesh, learned counsel for respondents.

4. Learned counsel for revision petitioner submitted that the impugned order of the appellate Court is replete with jurisdictional errors, material irregularities, and contraventions of established legal principles. He contended that the appeal of respondents was filed well beyond the stipulated limitation period, and yet, the appellate Court failed to address this glaring infirmity. He lamented that the appeal of respondents did not contain the requisite averments seeking exemption from limitation under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, which is a mandatory requirement, and that despite this omission, the appellate Court proceeded to entertain the appeal, which resulted in violating the fundamental principles of limitation and due process. He averred that the respondents had filed an application seeking condonation of delay, but the appellate Court erroneously returned the application without numbering it, and notwithstanding this, the appellate Court proceeded to hear the interlocutory applications of petitioner, which was improper and prejudicial to the rights of petitioner.

5. He further contended that the reliance placed by the appellate Court on the judgment rendered in the case of Purni Devi & Another vs. Babu Ram & Another1 was misplaced and misapplied, as the facts and circumstances of the present case were entirely different. Further, that the appellate Court failed to record any findings over the entitlement of respondents to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, which was a critical issue in the case. He asserted that the failure of appellate Court to address the respondents' delay, omission of necessary averments, and misapplication of legal principles have resulted in a grave

1 SLP (C) No.17665 of 2018 dated 02.04.2022

miscarriage of justice to petitioner, which necessitates intervention by this Court. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the judgments rendered in the cases of Suman Devi v. Manisha Devi and Others, [AIR 2018 SC 3912], Carona Ltd v. Paravathy Swaminathan and Sons, [2007 8 SCC 559], and Arun Kumar and Others v. Union of India and Others4. Therefore, he prayed this Court to allow the revision petition, setting aside the impugned order dated 19.06.2024.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondents opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner, stating that there are no irregularities or illegalities in the impugned order and that the appellate Court has rightly dismissed IA.No.350 of 2024. He contended that the respondents' actions we