THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1149 OF 2025

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioners herein/plaintiffs, challenging the order, dated 07.02.2025 passed in I.A.No.614 of 2024 in O.S.No.37 of 2016 by the learned Principal District Judge, Vikarabad, whereby, I.A.No.614 of 2024 filed by the respondents herein/defendant Nos.1, 2, 6, 10 to 12 and 14 under Section 5 of Limitation Act, seeking to condone the delay of 181 days in filing the petition under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the judgment and decree dated 19.12.2023, was allowed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners/plaintiffs initially filed the suit vide O.S.No.745 of 2015 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, seeking declaration of title, injunction, and other reliefs against the respondents herein/defendant Nos.1, 2, 6, 10 to 12 and 14 and other defendants. The respondents filed their written statements, and subsequently, the suit was transferred to the Court of the Principal District Judge, Vikarabad (hereinafter referred to as the “trial Court”) and renumbered as O.S.No.37 of 2016. The suit was decreed on 19.12.2023 in favour of the petitioners. Alleging that no notice was served with respect to the transfer and hearing of the suit, and claiming that they came to know about the decree only on 15.07.2024, the respondents filed I.A.No.614 of 2024 seeking to condone the delay of 181 days in filing the set aside petition. The trial Court, vide order dated 07.02.2025, allowed the said application subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed this revision.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the trial Court erred in allowing I.A.No.614 of 2024 filed by the respondents. It is submitted that the issues in the suit were framed in the presence of the learned counsel for the respondents, who were aware of the transfer of the suit and pendency of the proceedings before the trial Court. Despite such knowledge, the respondents failed to appear, and the suit was decided on merits. Therefore, the delay of 181 days in filing the petition to set aside the decree lacks sufficient explanation and ought not to have been condoned.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the respondents were not served with any notice regarding the transfer of the suit or the date of hearing, and came to know about the decree only on 15.07.2024. It is further submitted that immediately, the respondents filed the subject I.A under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay. It is contended that the trial Court rightly condoned the delay after considering the facts and applying settled legal principles.

5. A perusal of the impugned order dated 07.02.2025 passed in I.A.No.614 of 2024 in O.S.No.37 of 2016 would show that the trial Court, after examining the material on record and placing reliance on various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, allowed the application for condonation of delay subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- by the respondents to the petitioners. It is well settled that while dealing with applications for condonation of delay, the Courts must adopt a liberal, justice-oriented, and pragmatic approach, rather than a technical or pedantic one. In the present case, the delay of 181 days cannot be termed as inordinate, and the explanation given by the respondents constitutes sufficient cause. This Court finds no illegality or irregularity in the exercise of discretion by the trial Court.

6. It is relevant to state that the scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is limited. The High Court can exercise supervisory jurisdiction only in cases where there is patent illegality, perversity, or gross violation of the principles of natural justice. In the prese