THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.238 of 2025

ORDER:

Heard Sri Anil Kumar Uppala, learned counsel for the Revision petitioner/plaintiff and Sri T. Surya Satish, learned counsel for respondents/defendants.

2. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 06.11.2024 passed in I.A.No.426 of 2021 in O.S. No.49 of 2014 by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sircilla, wherein and whereby the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff herein for condoning the delay of 696 days in filing application under Order IX Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure, was dismissed.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the revision petitioner herein filed a suit against the respondents/defendants O.S.No.49 of 2014 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sircilla, for partition and not to alienate the property by the respondent/defendant No.2 and the respondents/defendants remained ex parte in that suit and it was posted on 10.04.2019 for leading the evidence of the petitioner/plaintiff. In the said suit, the petitioner/plaintiff also filed a petition for amendment to declare that the registered sale deed vide document No.3471/2011, dated 29.06.2011 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Sircilla, as null and void and not binding on the petitioner/plaintiff.

4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff submits that as the petitioner/plaintiff was suffering from fever and she could not contact her Advocate to know the date and stage of the case and the file was misplaced in the Advocate’s office. However, on 10.04.2019, the Trial Court was pleased to dismiss the suit for default. Later, she filed a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 696 days in filing the application under Order IX Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure. However, the trial Court was pleased to dismiss the said petition on 06.11.2024 as she did not file any supporting documents to show that she was suffering from fever.

5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff further submits that the petitioner/plaintiff could not attend the Court due to the above said reason only but not wanton. Accordingly, prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants would submit that it is only pure negligence on the part of the petitioner/plaintiff, as such, she could not file any document in support of her ill-health.

Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the revision petition.

7. As seen from the record, the above suit is filed for partition of the immovable properties and to declare that the registered sale deed vide document No.3471/2011, dated 29.06.2011 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Sircilla, as null and void and not binding on the petitioner/plaintiff. Since the issue is involved in respect of rights of the parties over immovable properties and to decide the matter comprehensively, this Court is inclined to allow the Civil Revision Petition subject to certain conditions.

8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order of the trial Court, dated 06.11.2024 passed in I.A. No.426 of 2021 in O.S.No.49 of 2014 and the delay is condoned subject to revision petitioner paying costs of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) before the District Legal Services Authority, Sircilla, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

__________________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J Dated: 28.03.2025 Bdr.

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.238 of 2025 DATE: 28.03.2025 BDR