HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1755 OF 2024

ORDER:

This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated

02.04.2024 passed in I.A.No.1381 of 2023 in AS(SR).No.6036 of 2023 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereby an application filed seeking to condone the delay of 285 days in filing the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 23.06.2020 passed in OS.No.2068 of 2015 on the file of V Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, was dismissed.

2. Heard Sri B.Mohan, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri K.V.Mallikarjun Rao, learned counsel for respondent.

3. The issue that falls for consideration before this Court in this Civil Revision Petition is whether the petitioners have shown sufficient and valid grounds for condonation of delay in filing the Appeal against the judgment passed by the trial Court. Therefore, the merits of the suit vis-à-vis either parties to the suit are not relevant and hence, the same are not adverted to.

4. The petitioners, in the affidavit filed in support of the application to condone the delay of 285 days in filing the Appeal against the judgment of the trial Court, have principally contended that summons were not served on them through the Court in OS.No.2068 of 2015, as such, they had no knowledge about filing of the suit, suit proceedings and passing of decree against them in the said suit. It was further averred that they came to know about the said suit only on 10.02.2023, that too, on being informed by their counsel, who is representing them in OS.No.921 of 2014 on the file of VIII Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, that there is a mention of OS.No.2068 of 2015 on the file of V Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in the counter-affidavit filed in IA.No.568 of 2019 in IA.No.792 of 2016 in OS.No.921 of 2014 and hence, the delay occurred in filing the Appeal and sought to condone the same.

5. The respondent filed counter affidavit denying the averments made by the petitioners in the application and contended that the petitioners were well aware of pendency of OS.No.2068 of 2015; that she has also given the list of proceedings with respective dates in OS.Nos.921 of 2014 and 1116 of 2014 on the file of VIII Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, in which there was specific mention about the pendency of OS.No.2068 of 2015, however, the petitioners remained silent and pretend to be unaware of filing of O.S.No.2068 of 2015 and therefore, there is deliberate negligence on the part of the petitioners in filing the Appeal and hence, the delay cannot be condoned.

6. The First Appellate Court, taking into consideration the pleadings of both the parties and the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties, has declined to condone the delay by the impugned order. Questioning the same, the present Revision Petition is filed.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the First Appellate Court failed to consider the fact that in OS.No.2068 of 2015, notice was not served on the petitioners through Court or registered post and further, publication of notice by way of substitute service under Order V Rule 20 CPC is not sufficient service, and has erroneously passed the impugned order declining to condone the delay. Learned counsel further contended that substantial rights of the petitioners are involved in the suit and as such, the First Appellate Court ought to have condoned the delay at least by imposing costs. By contending thus, learned counsel prayed to allow the Revision Petition.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the petitioners were well aware of filing of suit in O.S.No.2068 of 2015 against them as there is specific mention about the same in the proceedings/material papers that were filed in other suits pending between the same parties i.e., in O.S.No.921 of 2014 and 1116 of 2014 and hence, the plea of the petitio