THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2823 of 2019

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 15.04.2019 passed in I.A.No.3 of 2018 in O.S.No.1148 of 2008 by the learned X Additional Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar.

2. The petitioner is the plaintiff. She filed the suit for partition and separate possession of suit schedule property vide O.S.No.1148 of 2008 against defendants 1 to 5. The defendant No.1 is the father of the plaintiff. The defendants 2 to 4 are brothers and sister of the plaintiff. The defendant No.5 was alleged to be in possession of suit schedule A & B properties. When the matter was posted for trial, due to the failure of the plaintiff to adduce evidence, the suit was dismissed for default on 19.12.2014. The plaintiff subsequently filed a petition for restoration of the suit along with a condone delay application to condone the delay of 1137 days in filing the application to set aside the dismissal order and to restore the suit to its original stage.

3. In support of the petition, the plaintiff filed an affidavit stating that as she suffered with jaundice and was taking medicines and was completely bed ridden, she could not contact her counsel nor appear before the Court. She was under the impression that her counsel was pursuing the matter. When she recently contacted her counsel, she came to know that the suit was dismissed on 08.04.2014 for default due to non-representation, as such, filed the application to restore the suit by setting aside the dismissal order.

4. The suit was initially filed against defendants 1 to 5. But subsequently, the defendants 6 to 17 were also added. The respondents 1 to 4, 6 to 9 and 12 to

17 remained ex-parte.

5. The respondents 5, 10 and 11 filed their counter opposing the petition contending that after a long gap of 1137 days, the petitioner filed the application with change of counsel, which would not cover her laches. Several changes took place in the meanwhile and prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. The learned VIII Additional District Judge, FAC of X Additional District Judge, Rangareddy District passed the impugned common order dismissing I.A.Nos.3 & 4 of 2018 filed for condoning the delay and to set aside the ex- parte order dated 19.12.2014 observing that the petitioner – plaintiff failed to adduce evidence on several opportunities provided to her on 28.11.2014, 05.12.2014 and 12.12.2014. A conditional order was passed on 12.12.2014, but as she failed to adduce evidence, the suit was dismissed for default. No reasonable explanation was given by the petitioner for such huge delay. There was demonstrable laxity exhibited by the petitioner at every stage of the proceeding and that the petitioner failed to prosecute the matter diligently.

7. Aggrieved by the said dismissal, the petitioner – plaintiff preferred this revision.

8. Heard Sri E.Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.V.Pratap Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 and Sri P.Balaji Verma, learned counsel for the respondent No.7.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was a household lady. She filed the partition suit against her ancestral property. She suffered with ill-health due to jaundice and could not lead the evidence when the case was called for. Due to the dismissal of the restoration petition, the time and efforts put by her in prosecuting the suit would be in vain and she could not afford to file a fresh suit due to her financial condition. The trial court ought to have liberally allowed the petition and relied upon the judgments of this Court in C.R.P.No.710 of 2014 dated 30.08.2024 and of the Division Bench judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi in Smt.P.Chandrakala v. M/s.Karnataka State Industrial and Development Corporation Limited and Others, 12024 (5) ALT 533 (DB)

10. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that respondents 5 and 17 were subse