THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.34 and 75 of 2025 COMMOM ORDER:

CRP.No.34 of 2025 is filed by revision petitioner aggrieved by the common order, dated 14.10.2024, passed in I.A.No.46 of 2024 in MVOP.No.398 of 2017 on the file of Principal District Judge at Jangaon.

2. CRP.No.75 of 2025 is filed by revision petitioner aggrieved by the common order, dated 14.10.2024, passed in I.A.No.47 of 2024 in MVOP.No.398 of 2017 on the file of Principal District Judge at Jangaon.

3. Since CRP.Nos.34 and 75 of 2025 are arising out of the same order, they are being heard together.

4. For the sake of convenience, facts in CRP.No.34 of

2025 are discussed hereunder.

5. The operative portion of the common order, dated 14.10.2024, passed in I.A.Nos.46 and 47 of 2024 in MVOP.No.398 of 2017 reads as follows: “In the result, the petitions in I.A.No.46 of 2024 and I.A.No.47 of 2024 are allowed on following conditions:

1. The petitioner/respondent No.2 is directed to deposit ½ of the decreed amount of MVOP.No.398/2017, dt:20.09.2019, with costs within one month and file the counter in the main case.

2. The petitions, I.A.Nos.46/2024 and

47/2024, are allowed on costs of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) to be paid to the respondents/petitioners within one month subject to the above conditions.”

6. It is not in dispute that a petition under Section 5 of Limitation Act was filed vide I.A.No.46 of 2024 to condone the delay of 1452 days (i.e., from 20.12.2019 to 11.12.2023). Another petition under Order IX Rule 13 r/w Section 151 of C.P.C was filed vide I.A.No.47 of 2024 to set aside the ex-parte decree, dated 20.09.2019, passed by the Chairman, MACT-cum-II Additional District Judge, Warangal in MVOP No.398 of 2017 by granting compensation of Rs.7,86,000/-.

7. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that due to Covid-19, engaging an advocate was difficult and as such the order, dated 20.09.2019 was passed and at that time petitioner was out of station in Chhattisgarh to collect paddy and he could not return within the time.

8. Learned counsel placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in RE:Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, [2022 LawSuit(SC)35]. The relevant portion of the order is as follows:

“Taking into consideration the arguments advanced by learned counsel and the impact of the surge of the virus on public health and adversities faced by litigants in the prevailing conditions we deem it appropriate to dispose of the M.A.No.21 of 2022 with the following directions:

I. The order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and in continuation of the subsequent orders dated 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021, it is directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi judicial proceedings.

II. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 03.10.2021, if any, shall become available with effect from

01.03.2022.

III. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply.

IV. It is further clarified that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23(4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings.”

9. Learned counsel further placed reliance upo