The Hon’ble Smt. Justice Renuka Yara Civil Revision Petition No.1727 of 2024

Order:

This is a Civil Revision Petition directed against the impugned order passed by the learned Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Huzurabad in I.A.No.856 of 2022 in I.A.No.615 of 2008 in O.S.No.538 of 1968, dated 14.09.2023.

2. Heard Sri Dunna Ambedkar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner No.2 and Sri K. Buchi Babu, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3/proposed petitioners.

3. The deceased plaintiff who is shown as revision petitioner No.1 herein filed suit for partition and the said suit was decreed allotting 1/6^th share to the deceased plaintiff. Then, the revision petitioner No.2 herein filed a petition vide I.A.No.790 of 2010 to bring him on record after the demise of the deceased plaintiff who initiated final decree proceedings and the same came to be dismissed for default. Currently, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein have filed the present petition to condone the delay of 12 years 8 months 17 days in filing the petition to set aside the order of abatement passed against the deceased plaintiff. In that regard, the revisions petitioner herein opposed the petition contending that the delay is not properly explained. The reasons for delay about the respondent Nos.1 to 3 being ignorant of law cannot be a ground for condoning the delay. While disposing of the petition, the learned Trial Court held that the nature of proceedings and necessity of representation of the proposed parties has to be considered for condoning delay. It is held that the respondent Nos.1 to 3 cannot be made to suffer for not filing the petition at appropriate stage i.e. within 90 days of death of their father. It is further held that for adjudication of final decree proceedings, there is a need for presence of respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein, as such, delay was condoned. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petition is filed.

4. In grounds of revision, it is submitted that the delay of 12 years, 8 months and 17 days is condoned without there being a proper explanation about the reasons for delay. The preliminary decree as well as order of abatement in I.A.No.615 of 2008 were passed in the year 2008. It is contended that mere ground of ignorance is not sufficient to condone the delay of 12½ years and therefore, the learned Trial Court grossly erred in allowing the petition.

5. During arguments in revision, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner No.2 relied upon judgment of the Hon’ble supreme Court of India in case between Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others, (2013) 12 SCC 649 about what constitutes a sufficient cause.

6. There is no dispute about the fact that the father of respondent Nos.1 to 3 and revision petitioner No.2 herein filed a suit for partition and obtained a preliminary decree. Subsequently, in the year 2008, final decree proceedings were initiated and at that time, the father of respondent Nos.1 to 3 died. At this juncture, allegedly, revision petitioner No.2 has convinced the respondent Nos.1 to 3 who are his natural sisters that he will come on record, that he will get the share of their father allotted in his name and then the same be equally divided among the sisters and the brother. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 believed

the version of revision petitioner No.2 and therefore, did not participate in the suit proceedings. Subsequently, respondent Nos.1 to 3 came to know that the revision petitioner No.2 closed the petition filed by him to bring him on record and by getting the final decree proceedings abated is trying to get mutation of entire share of properties allotted to their father in the final decree in his name. The version of respondent Nos.1 to 3 does not give clarity about whether there is conclusion of final decree proceedings or they are still pending.

7. The reason of ignorance is not a ground for non- participation of the respondent Nos.1 to 3, rather, they