IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA Date: 12.12.2025 Between:

Smt. N.Shailaja ...petitioner AND Smt. G.Venkata Dhana Lakshmi ...respondent Mr. K.Mallikarjun, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition arises out of an order dated

30.10.2025 in I.A.No.504 of 2025 in I.A.No.358 of 2021 in O.S.No.1410 of 2014 passed by the V Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar (‘Trial Court’), dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner seeking condonation of delay of 365 days in filing the petition under Order IX Rule 13 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’), against an order dated 07.06.2024.

2. The revision petitioner is the defendant before the Trial Court in a Suit filed for recovery of money.

3. The Trial Court dismissed I.A.No.504 of 2025 on the ground that the petitioner had failed to show any reasonable cause for condonation of delay in filing the petition under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC. The Trial Court also deemed it fit to direct the petitioner to pay costs of Rs.5,000/- to the District Legal Services Authority, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.

Nagar within the specified timeframe.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed the relevant paragraphs of I.A.No.504 of 2025 filed for condonation of delay and submitted that the impugned order should be set aside.

5. However, even on a bare perusal of the IA, including paragraph No.2 of I.A.No.504 of 2025, it is evident that the petitioner has not given a single reason for condoning the delay of 365 days in filing the petition under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC. The only statements made in paragraph No.3 (mistakenly as para No.2) of the affidavit to the IA are that the Court has passed the order without following the due procedure and that the Notice of Attachment Order is hence illegal and incorrect. The IA makes allegations against the Court for passing the impugned order of attachment of salary and for forfeiting the petitioner’s right to file counter. The only allegation by the petitioner is that the petitioner did not receive the notice of the review petition and came to know of the decree of the review petition on 23.06.2025 through Warrant of Attachment dated

26.04.2025.

6. Section 5 of The Limitation Act, 1963 requires the petitioner to give sufficient cause for condonation of delay for filing the application beyond the prescribed time. The affidavit to the IA does not contain a single reason/cause for explaining the delay of 365 days for filing the petition. The Trial Court hence correctly held that the petitioner has failed to give any reasonable cause for condonation of delay and has only made allegations against the Court. The Trial Court, accordingly dismissed the petition along with costs Rs.5,000/-.

7. This Court does not see any error in the impugned order. 8. C.R.P.No.4218 of 2025, along with all connected applications, is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

__________________________________ MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J DATE: 12.12.2025 Pvt THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA Date: 12.12.2025 PVT