HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2333 OF 2024

ORDER:

This C.R.P is filed assailing the order dated

05.07.2024, passed by the Principal District Judge, R.R. District at L.B.Nagar in I.A.No.348 of 2024 in ASSR No.443 of 2024 whereby whereunder the application filed by the petitioner to condone the delay of 28 days in preferring the appeal was dismissed.

2. Heard Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri K.Rahul, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Balakrishna, learned counsel representing Sri Joshi Mohan Sharma, learned counsel for respondent Nos.8, 9, 10, 12, 14 to 19.

3. Learned Senior counsel would submit that the petitioner filed suit in O.S.No.92 of 2017 on the file of IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B.Nagar against respondents to declare the petitioner as owner of suit schedule property and for recovery of possession of suit schedule property. However, the suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 01.11.2023. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred appeal vide ASSR.No.443 of 2024 along with application for condonation of delay of 28 days in preferring the appeal vide I.A.No.348 of 2024. However, the trial Court dismissed the said application only on the ground that the petitioner has failed to show reasonable cause for condonation of delay.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner is a senior citizen and he is suffering with old age ailments and because of his health condition, he could not take any steps challenging the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. He further submit that substantial rights in immovable property are involved, therefore, trial Court ought to have adopted a liberal approach while adjudicating the application filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay and more so, the delay is only 28 days. He would further submit that the petitioner is suffering with cervical spondylosis and other health issues and was taking treatment during and also after disposal of the suit. In support of his contention, the petitioner has placed prescription dated 04.12.2023, on record and thus, prayed to allow the revision.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent would submit that petitioner has to assign proper and sufficient reasons for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and the delay cannot be condoned on mere asking, without there being any material in support of contention of the petitioner that he was suffering with ill health and old age ailments. He would further submit that the prescription dated 04.12.2023, placed on record along with the present revision was in fact not filed before the trial Court and therefore, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application and no grounds are made out to interfere with the impugned order and thus, prayed to dismiss the revision.

6. Perusal of the impugned order would disclose that the trial Court has dismissed the application with an observation that in the application filed for condonation of delay, the petitioner has not provided details of his illness as well as at the time of disposal of suit he was chronically ill and finally dismissed the application with an observation that petitioner has failed to show any reasonable cause for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

7. Admittedly, the petitioner herein is senior citizen and as per the prescription dated 04.12.2023, placed on record before this Court, the petitioner was suffering with cervical spondilosis and other ailments. The suit was filed for declaration of title in respect of suit schedule property and as rightly submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for petitioner that substantial rights in immovable property are involved and considering the age of the petitioner as well as his health condition and the delay in filing the appeal is only 28 days, the trial Court ought to have taken a lenient view and considered the application file