IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA HYDERABAD * * * *

+ CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2013 of 2024 Between:

Sandela Laxmi …Petitioner vs.

Athram Annaji & others ... Respondents ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: 22.11.2024 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments? : Yes

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes

3. Whether His Lordship wishes to see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes ___________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J * THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO + CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2013 of 2024 % 22—11—2024 Sandela Laxmi …Petitioner vs.

Athram Annaji & others …Respondents !Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Gajanand Chakravarthy ^Counsel for Respondents : Sri CH. Ravinder

? Cases referred

1 2013(12)SCC 649

2 (2023) 10 SCC 531 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2013 OF 2024

O R D E R:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/

plaintiff against the order dated 28.03.2024 passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge – Cum – Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Sirpur-T in I.A.No.38 of 2023 in O.S.No.93 of

2020.

2. Heard. Perused the record.

3. The case of the petitioner/plaintiff, in a nutshell, is that she is the owner, pattadar and possessor of the agriculture land to an extent of Ac.0-3920 gts (Ac.0-98 cents) in Sy.No.165, situated at Ityala Village of Dahegaon Mandal, Which is hereinafter to be referred as “suit schedule property”. She purchased the same from its owner by name Madavi Laxman and Madavi Nagaiah, sons Pandu, for valuable consideration through sale deed on 28.07.2012. The Tahsildar, Dahegaon implemented the said sale deed under ROR and mutation of patta was affected on the name of the petitioner/plaintiff. The comprehensive pattadar passbook-cum-title deed was also issued in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff for the suit schedule property. It is further case of the petitioner/ plaintiff that respondent/defendant Nos.1 to 6 are strangers to the suit schedule property and they have got no legal interest or right over it, but they have been proclaiming in the village that non-tribals cannot purchase land of tribals. On that ground, respondent/defendant Nos.1 to 6 are creating hurdle to the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner/plaintiff over the suit schedule property. While the things stood thus, on 05.10.2020 when the petitioner/plaintiff was watching the paddy crop at the suit schedule property, the respondent/defendant Nos.1 to 6 tried to dispossess her, but due to timely help of villagers, respondents/defendants could not succeed in their nefarious acts. The petitioner/plaintiff is apprehending dispossession in the hands of respondents/defendants.

4. Hence, the petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit vide O.S.No.93 of 2020 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge at Sirpur, seeking permanent injunction restraining the respondents/ defendants from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property.

5. The trial Court after considering the contentions of the plaintiff, decreed the suit by restraining the respondents/defendants from interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner/plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

6. Aggrieved by the said ex parte judgement and decree, the respondents/defendants filed I.A.No.38 of 2023 in O.S.No.93 of 2020, seeking to condone the delay of (111) days i.e., from 18.10.2022 to 07.02.2023 in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree and permit them to proceed with the case.

7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner/plaintiff filed counter in the said I.A., stating that the suit was decreed on 25.03.2021 and E.P.No.15 of 2022 was filed and notices were served on 13.09.2022 and the said E.P. was posted to 19.09.2022 for appearance of respondents/defendants. On 19.09.2022, Mr. Raparthi Ravinder, Advocate has filed hi