THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

Civil Revision Petition Nos.5027 & 5037 of 2018

COMMON ORDER :

The present Civil Revision Petitions have been filed by the petitioners

under article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the orders, dated 12.06.2018, passed in I.A.Nos.1242 & 1243 of 2016 in O.S.No.1458 of 2010 by

the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar.

2. Heard Mr.V.Venkata Mayur, learned counsel for the petitioners /

plaintiffs and Mr.Rakesh Sanghi, learned counsel for respondents/defendants.

3. The petitioners/plaintiffs filed the suit vide O.S.No.1458 of 2010 seeking perpetual injunction against the respondents/defendants. The defendants therein contested the suit and filed their written statement. The matter was posted for evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs on 17.11.2015 and on the said date, the plaintiffs could not appear and the suit was dismissed for default. Being aggrieved by the same, an interlocutory application was filed vide I.A.No.1242 of 2016 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying the court to condone the delay of 366 days in filing the petition under Order IX Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure

along with another interlocutory application vide I.A.No.1243 of 2016 praying the court to set aside the order of dismissal of the suit, dated 17.11.2015.

4. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, the learned trial court has dismissed the applications and held that the plaintiffs are unable to show valid reasons and sufficient cause to condone the delay of 366 days.

5. Having perused the entire material placed on record, it is a case where the petitioners/plaintiffs have filed a suit for perpetual injunction and could not appear on the date when the matter was posted for trial. As it is seen that the said suit is pertaining to the year 2010 and it was only for a bare perpetual injunction and as the matter was posted after long five years on 17.11.2015, for commencement of trial, it appears that inspite of the fact that the suit is being pending for more than five years, the petitioners/plaintiffs could not get ready with the suit, besides that, the reasons which are cited by the petitioners/plaintiffs for their non-appearance on the said date was that “they could not appear before the court because they are in real estate business for the last ten years and as they were in financial crises for the last one year and due to other family problems, and as such they could not attend the court”, due to which the suit was dismissed and they came to know about the dismissal only after 366 days. Hence, they filed the present applications.

6. Even on perusal of the affidavit filed along with these applications shows that on 17.11.2015 the matter was posted not only for leading evidence but also to proceed with the trial with a condition of imposing of Cost of Rs.50/-, even after that also, it appears that they have absented and did not proceed with the trial, as such, the suit was dismissed for default.

7. Though the petitioners/plaintiffs contends that due to financial crises and other family problems they could not attend the matter on 17.11.2015; whereas it shows that there are two plaintiffs who belongs to two different addresses and no reasons as to why the petitioner No.2 could not make any efforts and prosecute his case.

8. Considering the reasons cited by the petitioners/plaintiffs for condonation of delay of 366 day and the law having been settled that a liberal approach has to be taken in cases of condonation of delays, but simultaneously, where the reasons which are cited are not satisfactory, the question of condoning the delay and taking liberal view does not arise. In the present case, the reasons which are cited appears to be very casual and I do not see any ground to extend a liberal approach for condoning the delay and the trial court has rightly dismissed the applications and this Court also not inclined to disturb the said finding of the trial court and ther