HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CIVIL REVISION PETITON NO.1898 OF 2024

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the docket order dated 24.01.2024 passed in I.A.No.771 of 2022 in A.S.S.R.No.1725 of 2022 in O.S.No.111 of 2013 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Vikarabad District.

2. Heard Sri V.Venkat Ram Narsaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.Shiva Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff, respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein are the defendant Nos.3 and 4, respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein are defendant Nos.1 and 2 in the suit. For convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court.

4. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed suit for declaration that he is the adoptive son of Late Narayan Reddy and that registered sale deed vide document Nos.1057 of 2013 dated 26.03.2013 and 1142 of 2013 dated 30.03.2013 are not binding on the plaintiff and also for perpetual injunction in respect of the Suit Schedule “A and B” properties. Defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4 failed to contest the suit and defendant No.2 remained ex-parte. The trial Court on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence placed on record, decreed the suit vide judgment dated 17.09.2019.

5. The defendant Nos.3 and 4 filed appeal vide A.S.S.R.No.1725 of 2022 along with an application in I.A.No.771 of 2022 for condonation of delay of 470 days in preferring the appeal. The trial Court vide impugned docket order dated 24.01.2024 condoned the delay on payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- with an observation that though there is a lapse on the part of the petitioner in not contacting the counsel to know the outcome of the suit, however considering the fact that valuable rights in immovable properties are involved, the application was allowed on heavy costs. Aggrieved by the same, revision is filed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the trial Court without properly considering the scope and concept of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1955 and guidelines formulated by the Hon’ble Apex Court has mechanically condoned the delay in filing the appeal, despite observing that there is lapse on the part of the petitioner in pursuing the matter and contacting the counsel. He would further submit that the appellate Court allowed the application in a cryptic manner instead of passing a reasoned order. He would further submit that petitioner/plaintiff though filed detailed counter, the same was returned and the appellate Court without considering the said aspect allowed the application. He would further submit that the reasons stated by the defendants are vague, baseless and therefore, the first appellate Court ought to have dismissed the application as the same was devoid of any merit and thus, prayed to allow the petition.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in/and City Civil Court Appeal No.110 of 2021 dated 27.06.2023, wherein, this Court dismissed an application filed for condonation of delay of (561) days after excluding the Covid pandemic lockdown period with an observation that petitioner therein failed to explain the reasons for condonation of delay and that the petitioners are not diligent in pursuing the matter.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the appellate Court has rightly allowed the application since valuable rights of respondents over the immovable properties are involved. He would further submit that the respondents/ defendants have explained proper, cogent reasons for not filing the appeal within the limitation period and first appellate Court has rightly allowed the application on payment of heavy costs. He finally contended that revision is devoid of any merit and no grounds are made out to interfere with the impugned order and hence, prayed to dismiss the revision.

9. Learned counsel for the respondents relied on the ju