THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2192 OF 2025

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated

05.02.2025 passed in I.A.No.132 of 2020 in O.S.No.35 of 2015 by the

learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, at Sircilla, Rajanna Sircilla District.

2. Heard Mr.V.V.Ramana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and

Mr.R.Nagarjuna Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The petitioner/plaintiff instituted O.S. No. 35 of 2015 seeking (i) a declaration of title, (ii) recovery of possession, and (iii) mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per annum from the date of filing of the suit until delivery of possession of land bearing Survey No. 217, admeasuring Ac. 02.00 guntas, situated within the boundaries of Kolanur Village, Konaraopet Mandal. The suit, however, was dismissed for non-

prosecution on 16.12.2016.

4. Subsequently, the petitioner/plaintiff filed I.A. No. 132 of 2020, seeking condonation of delay of 93 days in filing a petition under Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) for restoration of the suit. On 05.02.2025, the trial Court, after considering the submissions, dismissed the said application. The Court observed that although the petitioner attributed his absence to ill-health, no medical documents or evidence were produced to substantiate this claim. Consequently, the

trial Court held that the explanation offered was not a valid or sufficient cause for the delay and accordingly rejected the petition. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has preferred the present Civil Revision Petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that following the dismissal of the suit, the petitioner had, on 20.04.2017, filed the restoration petition accompanied by an application for condonation of delay. It is contended that the petitioner’s absence on the date of dismissal was due to his genuine ill-health. Moreover, the suit at that stage was listed for framing of issues, a stage at which the personal presence of the plaintiff was not essential. It is further argued that the delay in prosecuting the matter effectively deprived the petitioner of an opportunity to pursue his claim on merits. Counsel, therefore, prays for interference by this Court, relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S. Ganesh Raju & Another v. Narasamma & Others [(2013) 11 SCC 341], wherein it was held that a liberal approach must be adopted in condonation of delay applications in order to advance substantial justice, unless mala fides in approaching the Court belatedly are clearly demonstrated.

6. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondents supports the order of the trial Court, submitting that the application was rightly dismissed on merits. It is argued that the reasons advanced for condonation were neither substantiated by documentary evidence nor shown to be bona fide. In the absence of credible material explaining the delay, the impugned order warrants no interference. Counsel further asserts that the respondents have already purchased the subject property and are in possession thereof. Hence, the petitioner has no justifiable ground for seeking restoration of the suit.

7. I have perused the material on record.

8. The reason assigned by the petitioner for the delay in filing the restoration petition is that he had fallen ill. On 16.12.2016, the date on which the matter was posted, the petitioner was unable to attend the proceedings due to his ill-health, and consequently, the suit was dismissed for non-prosecution. The sole ground urged by the petitioner for both his absence on the date of dismissal and the delay in filing the restoration petition is his illness.

9. It is pertinent to note that the revision petitioner, being the original plaintiff, had instituted the suit and there is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner’s absence on 16.12.2016, or the delay in filing the restoration petition, was deliberate or intended to prejudice the interests of the r