HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3796 OF 2023

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the order dated

02.06.2023 in I.A.No.966 of 2022 in O.S.No.49 of 2013 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy.

2. Heard Sri P. Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Bandugula Alekhya, learned counsel for respondent No.1.

3. The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs and respondents herein are defendants before the Trial Court.

4. Brief facts of the case are that petitioners herein filed O.S.No.49 of 2013 for partition and separate possession of agricultural land in Sy.No.120/B to an extent of Ac.6-02 gts, situated at Indrakaran Village of Sangareddy Mandal, Medak District (hereinafter referred to as ‘schedule property’). Respondents herein entered appearance and filed written statement and during the pendency of the suit, petitioners filed application to implead subsequent purchaser as party to the suit vide I.A.No.745 of 2013 and the same was coming up for issuance of notice to proposed party. It appears that the petitioners herein failed to deposit process and the suit was adjourned from time to time and was finally posted to 28.07.2017 and on that date, there was no representation on behalf of plaintiff, therefore, the trial Court dismissed the suit for default. Plaintiffs filed I.A.No.966 of 2022 under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay of 1696 days in filing the application to restore the suit. Trial Court vide impugned order dated 02.06.2023, dismissed the same with an observation that no specific reason is mentioned for condonation of huge delay of 1696 days and further observed that petitioners are not interested in prosecuting the case and in the absence of proper reasons, delay application cannot be allowed. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that along with the suit, application for interim injunction was filed and the same was granted restraining the respondents from alienating the schedule property, however, respondent No.3 alienated the schedule property, therefore, petitioners filed I.A.No.745 of 2015 to implead transferee as party to the suit and the said application was dismissed on 28.07.2017, for non payment of process and suit was also dismissed for default. Learned counsel further contended that effect of dismissal of suit came to light only when the petitioners approached counsel for impleading one Sri Bollan Nagesh, who was interfering with the possession of the schedule property, and that the counsel of the petitioners instead of filing implead application, returned the bundle along with No Objection Certificate on 17.12.2021 and that on verification, petitioners came to know that suit was dismissed for default on 28.07.2017 and the said fact was neither informed to the petitioners nor their earlier counsel took any steps to restore the suit. Hence, the delay of 1969 days in filing the application to restore the suit occurred.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that substantial rights of the petitioners in immovable properties are involved, and for no fault of the petitioners, they cannot be deprived of the legitimate share in the schedule property. The trial Court instead of considering application liberally, dismissed the same. Learned counsel further contended that the Courts have constantly held that where substantial rights of parties in immovable properties are involved or affected, Courts have to take a liberal approach in condoning the delay. Learned counsel further contended that matters involving immovable properties should be decided on their merits rather than throwing out the rights of the litigants on technicalities and prayed to allow the Revision.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 contended that petitioners failed to explain the inordinate delay of 1696 days in filing the application to set aside th