IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1675 of 2019 DATE: 05.01.2026 Between:

Parle Products Pvt. Ltd., and another …Petitioners AND Mohammed Lateefuddin …Respondent

O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code against the Order and Decree dated 21.02.2019 in I.A.No.6216 of 2018 in A.S.S.R.No.19941 of 2018 on the file of the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. Heard Sri S. Sridhar, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared for the respondent. Perused the entire material on record.

3. The petitioner herein has filed I.A.No.6216 of 2018 in A.S.S.R.No.19941 of 2018 on the file of the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking condonation of delay of 266 days in filing an appeal against the Decree and Order dated 21.11.2017 in O.S.No.368 of 2014 on the file of the learned IX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Wherein, the respondents herein have filed a suit against the petitioner herein seeking to declare the order of termination dated 13.08.2013 is null and void contrary to the standing orders and also violative of principles of natural justice and well settled law and consequently, the said suit was decreed on merits on 21.11.2017.

4. The said Decree and Order with the delay of 266 days shows that the appellants/petitioners therein could not prefer an appeal for the reason that they were regularly contacting their counsel, but he did not give any update of the case and the petitioner counsel upon verification, the said suit was dismissed long back and requested their certified copies of the judgment and the said copy of the application was made on 12.12.2017 and it was made ready on 27.04.2018 and received by their counsel on 03.05.2018, but the same was handed over to them recently before filing of this application. As such, they could not file the appeal within stipulated time from the date of Decree and Order. Thereby, there was delay of 266 days in filing the appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent filed a counter affidavit denying the averments made in the petition and contended that the present petition is not maintainable as it was filed by misrepresentation of facts, suppressing the material facts, no cogent reasons assigned by the petitioner and not mentioned any sufficient cause, as to why the present appeal is filed with the condone delay petition. It is further contended that the said petition was filed only to harass the respondent and the question arises, that when the petitioners have contacted their counsel and in the absence of any material information, the question of blaming the counsel is unfair on the part of the petitioners except blaming the counsel for the delay, which has no proper explanation and it is submitted that the length of the days should not be seen as per the settled law but the sufficient cause has to be seen, but in the present case, the petitioners did not mentioned sufficient cause, as such there was a delay of 266 days in filing the present appeal and prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. Having heard both the counsels before the trial Court, the learned trial Court dismissed the petition, being aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed on the ground that the learned trial Court ought to have seen that refusing to condone the delay can result in a meritorious matter been thrown out at the very threshold, and because of that justice being defeated. As against this, when the delay is condoned, a case would be decided on merits after hearing the parties and substantial justice would have done. The learned trial Court without considering the same, dismissed the said application.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner while making his submissions, contended that the learned trial Court ought to have seen the days for delay in filing the appeal and he also relied upon the judgment of th