HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2947 of 2023 Date: 06.03.2026 Between:

Nirugonda Laxmi …. Petitioner AND Ramesh Kunarapu …. Respondent

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is preferred by the petitioner/defendant aggrieved by the order dated 24.06.2023 (hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”) passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge-cum- Assistant Sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, at Medchal in I.A.Nos.1572 of 2021 in O.S.No.151 of 2019. By the Impugned Order, the Trial Court dismissed the petitioner’s application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking condonation of delay of 760 days in filing of an application to set aside the exparte judgment and decree dated 01.11.2019 passed in O.S.No.151 of 2019.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their status before the Trial Court.

I. BRIEF FACTS

3. The factual backdrop to the present revision is as follows:

The petitioner claims title over the Suit Schedule Property by virtue of a registered Gift Deed dated 11.10.1982 executed by her father, and her title was earlier declared by decree in O.S.No.1516 of 2007 dated 28.10.2009. Subsequently, the respondent/plaintiff allegedly relying upon an Agreement of Sale dated 11.03.2019 instituted O.S.No.151 of 2019 seeking specific performance and obtained an ex parte decree on 01.11.2019. Thereafter, the respondent/plaintiff initiated execution proceedings in E.P.No.10 of 2020. Upon receipt of notice in the execution petition, the petitioner/defendant filed I.A.No.1572 of 2021 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 760 days along with an application to set aside the ex parte decree. The Trial Court, by order dated 24.06.2023, dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the impugned orders passed by the Trial Court, the petitioner/defendant has approached this Court in the present Revision.

II. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES:

a) Submissions on behalf of the petitioner/ Defendant:

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.1.00 guntas in Sy.No.599 situated at Babaguda, H/o. Shameerpet Village and Mandal, Medchal–Malkajgiri District (‘Schedule Property’), having acquired title under a registered Gift Deed bearing Document No.4918/1982 dated 11.10.1982 executed by her father. When the brother of the petitioner denied her title, she was constrained to institute a suit vide O.S.No.1516 of 2007 on the file of the VI Additional Senior Civil Judge, Medchal, and by Judgment and Decree dated 28.10.2009, the suit was decreed in her favour. It is further contended that, while pursuing mutation of her name in the revenue records, she was introduced to the respondent/plaintiff, who, taking advantage of her illiteracy and under the guise of assisting her in said mutation, fraudulently obtained her signatures on an alleged Agreement of Sale dated 11.03.2019. It was urged that the petitioner never executed any such agreement voluntarily, that the alleged sale consideration is meagre, and that the document is a result of fraud, which vitiates all proceedings founded upon it.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that on the basis of the fabricated agreement, the respondent/plaintiff instituted a suit vide O.S.No.151 of 2019 seeking specific performance of Agreement of Sale and obtained an ex parte decree dated 01.11.2019. It is further submitted that she came to know of the said decree only upon receipt of notice in E.P.No.10 of 2020, and immediately thereafter, filed I.A.No.1572 of 2021 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 760 days, along with an application to set aside the ex parte decree. It is also contended that no summons in O.S.No.151 of 2019 were ever duly served on her and that any alleged admission in cross- examina