IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4576 OF 2025 DATE: 10.03.2026 Between:

Boosa Paravathalu (Died Per LR’s) and Others …Petitioners AND Bonala Yellaiah and Others …Respondents

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the order dated

08.09.2025 passed in I.A. No.144 of 2023 in O.S. No.276 of 2013 by the learned IV Additional Junior Civil Judge at Karimnagar.

2. Heard Mr. Bethi Venkateshwarlu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, and Mr. Gummala Bhasker Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. The brief facts of the case, as pleaded by the petitioners, are that the petitioners are the defendants in the suit instituted by the respondents/plaintiffs seeking a decree of perpetual injunction in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.05 admeasuring Ac.1.13 guntas situated at Elagandal Village of Karimnagar, alleging interference by the original defendant (defendant No.1). During the pendency of the proceedings, defendant No.1 passed away and the present petitioners were brought on record as his legal representatives. Subsequently, as the petitioners did not contest the proceedings, the trial Court proceeded with the matter and ultimately decreed the suit ex parte on 22.11.2021. After a lapse of 527 days, the petitioners filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to set aside the ex parte decree, along with a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay. The trial Court, upon consideration of the submissions of both parties, passed the impugned order refusing to condone the delay in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree.

4.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners and the respondents are closely related, and owing to certain disputes between them, the respondents instituted the suit against their predecessor-in-interest (defendant No.1). After the demise of defendant No.1, the petitioners were brought on record as legal representatives vide order dated 25.02.2016 in I.A. No.123 of 2017. It is further contended that, during the pendency of the suit, both parties placed their disputes before village elders with a view to resolving the dispute amicably. According to the petitioners, upon such intervention, the respondents assured that the suit would be withdrawn and the dispute would be settled amicably. Believing such assurances, the petitioners did not pursue the proceedings before the trial Court. However, contrary to the said understanding, the respondents proceeded with the suit and ultimately obtained an ex parte decree. The petitioners submit that they became aware of the decree only subsequently and immediately took steps to file an application for setting aside the ex parte decree.

4.2. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners continue to be in possession of the suit schedule property and that the respondents have not interfered with their possession even after passing of the decree. Nevertheless, the existence of the decree in favour of the respondents would create serious complications and anomalies affecting the petitioners’ rights in respect of the property. Therefore, it became imperative for the petitioners to challenge the decree.

4.3. It is further contended that the explanation offered by the petitioners constitutes a bona fide and reasonable cause for the delay and that there was no deliberate negligence or lack of diligence on their part. Learned counsel submits that the trial Court failed to adopt a liberal and pragmatic approach while considering the application for condonation of delay and erred in dismissing the same. He therefore seeks interference by this Court.

5.1. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the trial Court has carefully examined the explanation offered by the petitioners for the delay of 527 days. It is contended that, exce