2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 52732
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI
Guntipally Laxmi and another – Appellant
Versus
Guntipally Mallesham and 2 others – Respondent
CRP 2209/2019
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2209 of 2019
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs, aggrieved by the order dated 25.06.2019 in I.A No.191 of 2018 in O.S No.167 of 2011 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Husnabad.
2. Heard Sri S.Ganesh, learned counsel for the petitioners.
3. Notice was served on respondent No.1 but there is no appearance for the respondent No.1.
4. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 remained exparte even before the trial Court in I.A No.191 of 2018 in O.S No.167 of 2011.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are the plaintiffs in the suit and the suit was filed for declaration of title and perpetual injunction against the defendants and due to the absence of the petitioners/plaintiffs on 22.11.2017, the case was dismissed for default but the absence was neither intentional nor wanton but only due to the ill health of the petitioner No.1 and the petitioner No.2 assisting her.
6. The learned counsel for petitioners further submitted that petitioner/plaintiff No.2 had stated in her affidavit along with the petition filed in I.A No.191 of 2018 that the petitioner No.1 was her mother and she was suffering with heavy back pain and fever, as such, petitioner No.1 was admitted in hospital for treatment. The petitioners also filed the medical record of the hospital. But the trial Court dismissed the application without considering it properly. He further submitted that substantial rights of the parties were involved, and if the delay was not condoned, it would cause irreparable loss to the parties.
7. Considering that the suit is filed for declaration of title and perpetual injunction involving substantial rights of the parties and that the delay was not inordinate in filing the petition for restoration of the suit and the petitioners also filed medical certificate showing sufficient cause for their absence, the trial Court committed an error in dismissing the petition. The trial Court ought to have allowed the petition by imposing certain conditions. As such, it is considered fit to allow the revision petition by setting aside the order of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Husnabad in I.A No.191 of 2018 in O.S No.167 of 2011 dated 25.06.2019 on condition of the petitioners/plaintiffs filing their evidence affidavit within a period of (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on payment of costs of Rs.2000/- to the respondents within the said period.
8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________ Dr. G.RADHA RANI, J
Date: 11.06.2025
dsv.