IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY

C.R.P.No.3602 OF 2025

DATE : 28.11.2025

Between:

Smt. Asfia Fathima W/o. Shahid Ahmed Khadri

…Petitioner

AND

Shahid Ahmed Khadri, S/o Ahmed Pasha Khadri

another.

…Respondents

ORDER:

Heard Mr.Mohd Majid Khan, learned counsel for the

petitioner and perused the record.

2. The present civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 17.06.2025 passed in I.A.No.1018 of 2024 in O.P.No.1633 of 2019 by the learned I Additional Family Court-cum-XIV Additional Metropolitan

Sessions Court, Hyderabad (for short, ‘Trial Court’).

3. Vide the impugned order dated 17.06.2025, the Trial Court has allowed I.A.No.1018 of 2024 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 888 days in filing the Order IX Rule 9 petition for restoration of the OP, which had been dismissed in default on 06.01.2022.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, assailing the said order of condoning delay by the Trial Court, contends that there is an inordinate delay of 888 days with no plausible explanation that was given by the respondent herein and that all the explanations that were given are all afterthoughts with no sufficient cogent material to substantiate the same. He further contends that the conduct of the respondent herein clearly indicates that he has been deliberately avoiding the appearance before the Trial Court with an intention to protract the proceedings and that he has also not been paying the maintenance amount to the child regularly.

5. However, perusal of the impugned order would go to show that the date of dismissal in default by the Trial Court was during the Covid period and thereafter, it appears that for some reason, the petitioner seems to have not been made aware of the dismissal of the OP or the subsequent proceedings before the Court.

6. Taking all these facts, the Trial Court has allowed the petition seeking condonation of delay, subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/-. The Trial Court thereby has particularly appreciated the fact that the substantive dispute between the parties is a family dispute between the spouses and considering the nature of dispute also, the Trial Court got it fit for restoring the OP which got dismissed for default.

7. In the given factual circumstances, particularly, considering the dispute to be a family dispute and also considering the fact that the dismissal in default was during covid period, the finding given by the Trial Court cannot be found fault with.

8. The Civil Revision Petition thus fails and is accordingly rejected. There shall be no order as to costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

__________________

P.SAM KOSHY, J

28.11.2025 Pvt