IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.575 OF 2020

Date: 11.12.2025

Between:

Mudravena Rajaiah (Died) his LR’s

…Petitioners

AND

Mudderavena Chandraiah and others

…Respondents

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of Code

of Civil Procedure, against the order passed in I.A.No.697 of 2019 in A.S.(CF).No.3835 of 2019 on the file of Principal District Judge, Karimnagar, wherein the petitioners herein who are the appellants/plaintiffs in the suit in O.S.No.51 of 2010 filed a suit seeking recovery of possession. The said suit was dismissed vide order dated 10.08.2018 by the trial court and the plaintiffs therein

failed to substantiate their title over the suit schedule property.

2. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioners

preferred the appeal along with condonation delay petition in A.S.(CF).No.3835 of 2019 before the learned Principal District

Judge, Karimnagar. In the Condonation Delay i.e., I.A.No.697 of 2019, there was a delay of 178 days and the reason cited in the petition was that the petitioners could not file the same within time and the suit was dismissed on 10.08.2018, and the certified copy of the judgment and decree was furnished to their counsel on 24.11.2018 and the petitioners further contended that due to ill health of appellant No.4, she could not approach her counsel and that as her health is not well and as she could not move from bed, due to which the other petitioners who do not know the counsel, could not approach the counsel for obtaining the certified copy of the judgment/decree and after recovery of her health she approached her counsel, and came to know that there is delay of 205 days, hence they mentioned as 205 days, but on calculation the delay was found as 178 days.

3. Per Contra, It is contended by the respondents that the petitioners suppressed the real facts with false and baseless averments and further contended that the petitioner No.4 has not mentioned with which disease the health condition of the petitioner No.4 was suffering and further contended that the petitioner No.4 has not mentioned what prevented the other petitioners to approach their counsel to file an appeal and the learned trial Court without considering the said submissions made by both the counsel and also relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in D.Gopinathan Pillai vs. State of Kerala, AIR 2007 (SC) 2624 has dismissed the petition.

4. Being aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed contending that petitioner No.4 has fallen sick and due to her ill health she could not approach her counsel in order to prefer the appeal within time and after recovery from ill-health, the petitioners filed the first appeal vide A.S.(CF).No.3835 of 2019, dated 31.10.2019. The Court below by holding that “the delay cannot be condoned without assigning any reasonable, satisfactory, sufficient and proper reason and the petitioners failed to show any justifiable cause or valid reason,” dismissed the petition.

5. It is further contended that the petitioners are having valuable rights in the suit schedule property and as per the legal advise the petitioners have a strong case and fair chances of success in the first appeal. In view of the dismissal of the delay and not giving an opportunity to the petitioners in challenging the possession of the suit by way of first appeal is against the settled principles of law and hence prayed to allow the revision and condone the delay of 178 days.

6. Having heard Sri Bethi Venkateshwarlu, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Buchi Babu, learned counsel for the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioners have contended that there are eight other petitioners but only the petitioner No.4 was looking after the case and she was also examined PW2 besides the other petitioners and it is the case of the petitioners before the trial Court that as she is only one who has been p