THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR Civil Revision Petition No.1506 of 2023

ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents and perused the record.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dt.24.03.2023 in I.A.No.452 of 2019 in O.S.No.6 of 2014 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Pargi, Vikarabad District.

3. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the suit filed by her for grant of perpetual injunction against the respondents herein.

4. The petitioner herein had filed the underlying interlocutory application in the aforesaid suit under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short, ‘the Act’), on 30.10.2019, to condone the delay of 821 days in bringing the legal representatives of respondent No.1/defendant No.1 on record in the aforesaid suit.

5. The petitioner while seeking condonation of delay of 821 days, had claimed that being an old aged woman, she was unable to meet her counsel within time and also on account of the fact that she is suffering from ill-health since long time, and as such, the delay in filing the underlying application had occurred and sought for condoning the same.

6. The underlying interlocutory application was opposed by the respondents herein by filing counter. On behalf of the respondents, it is contended that the delay of 821 days in bringing the legal representatives of the 1^st respondent is not a small delay, more particularly, when the petitioner had filed the suit for grant of perpetual injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the suit schedule land in Sy.No.343/7/1 admeasuring Acs.4.37 guntas situated at Bandavelikicherla Village, claiming to have purchased the same under registered sale deed dt.19.06.1986 and the respondents herein are trying to illegally occupy the suit land.

7. It is also contended by the respondents that the petitioner except claiming to be suffering from ill-health for such long period, did not produce any material to substantiate the aforesaid claim. It is further contended on behalf of the respondents that since, the petitioner did not state the ground for the delay with sufficient details, the delay of 821 days in bringing the legal representatives of the 1^st defendant in the suit cannot be condoned and the suit against the 1^st defendant stood abated.

8. The Court below taking note of the respective contentions on both sides had placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of P.K.Ramchandran v/s. State of Kerala, (1997) 7 SCC 556, wherein it was held that,

“In the absence of reasonable, satisfactory or even appropriate explanation for seeking condonation of delay, the same is not condoned lightly. It is further observed that while exercising discretion for condonation of delay, the Court has to exercise discretion Judiciously.”

9. The Court below further placed reliance on the decision in the case of Baswaraj and another v/s. Special Land Acquisition Officer, 2013 (7) ALT 43 (SC) in coming to conclusion that the petitioner did not explain the delay sufficiently nor placed on record any material to substantiate the claim made by her in the affidavit filed in support of the application filed under Section 5 of the Act and accordingly dismissed the same.

10. Though on behalf of the petitioner, it was sought to be contended that since, the petitioner is an old aged woman and suffering from ill- health and as such not being able to contact her counsel, the petitioner on the other hand, claimed of the respondents illegally interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property, in which case, the petitioner ought to have taken steps to pursue the suit filed by her by bringing the legal representatives of the 1^st defendant on record, who admittedly had deceased in July, 2017, as it is the case of the petitioner that it is the 1^st defendant who was interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule prope