Back
2026 Supreme(Telangana) 321
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
J. Sreenivas Rao, J.
M/s. J.C. Constructions and others - Petitioners
Versus
Sri Seetha Ramanjaneya Finance - Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No.4551 of 2025
Decided On : 13-03-2026
Advocate Appeared:
Petitioner Counsel: P. Kasi Nageswar Rao
Respondent Counsel: S. Ganesh
Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, condonation of delay requires proving "sufficient cause" without negligence. Courts must strictly enforce statutory limitation periods regardless of equitable hardships, adhering to the principle of "dura lex sed lex."
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order IX Rule 13 - Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 - Condonation of delay in filing application to set aside ex parte decree - Delay of 2308 days - To seek condonation of delay, applicant must demonstrate "sufficient cause," meaning the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or lacked bona fides - The court must examine whether the mistake was bona fide or a device to cover an ulterior purpose - Sufficient cause should be interpreted liberally to ensure justice, but only where negligence or inaction cannot be imputed to the party (Para 6).
(B) Law of Limitation - Application - Statutory provisions of limitation must be applied with rigour as prescribed by statute - Court lacks power to extend limitation periods on equitable grounds - Hardship or inconvenience is not a decisive factor to ignore statutory provisions, following the legal maxim "dura lex sed lex" (the law is hard but it is the law) (Para 6).
Facts of the case:
A suit for recovery of money based on a promissory note was decreed ex parte. Subsequently, execution proceedings were initiated for the recovery of the decretal amount. The petitioners filed an application to set aside the ex parte decree along with an application seeking condonation of a delay of 2308 days, citing the ill health of one of the petitioners as the reason. The trial court dismissed the application for condonation of delay, which was then challenged via a civil revision petition.
Findings of Court:
The petitioners did not provide specific evidence to substantiate the claim of ill health nor did they explain why other petitioners failed to approach the court. In the absence of sufficient reasons or supporting material, the inordinate delay of 2308 days could not be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Issues: Whether the petitioners established "sufficient cause" to justify the condonation of a 2308-day delay in applying to set aside an ex parte decree.
Ratio Decidendi: Condonation of delay requires a satisfactory explanation of "sufficient cause" where the applicant was not negligent and acted diligently. Courts cannot override statutory limitation periods based on equity or hardship; the law must be enforced as written when the statute so prescribes.
Result: Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
ORDER :
J. Sreenivas Rao, J.
This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge in I.A. No. 19 of 2024 in O.S. No. 23 of 2015, whereby the application filed by the petitioner seeking condonation of delay of 2308 days in filing an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the C.P.C. was dismissed.
2. The facts giving rise to filing of the present Civil Revision Petition briefly stated as under:-
2.1. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit vide O.S. No. 23 of 2015 for recovery of an amount of Rs.14,40,000/- with future interest @ 24% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.10,00,000/- from the date of the suit till the date of realization, basing on the joint promissory note executed by petitioner Nos. 2 and 3. The said suit was decreed on 12.11.2018 against the petitioners with costs, directing the petitioners to pay interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of the suit till the date of decree and subsequently @ 6% p.a. from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.10,00,000/-. The respondent filed E.P. No. 95 of 2023 on 26.09.2023. While the said E.P. was pending, the petitioners filed an application vide I.A. No. 19 of 2024 seeking condonation of delay of 2308 days in filing the application to set aside the decree. The learned trial Court dismissed the said application on 19.03.2025. Hence, the present revision.
3. Heard P.Kasi Nageswar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.Ganesh, learned counsel for the respondent.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners did not receive the suit summons and that the learned trial Court passed an ex parte decree on 12.11.2018. The petitioners came to know about the same only after receiving notices in the E.P. Immediately thereafter, the petitioners filed an application seeking to set aside the ex parte decree and, along with the said application, also filed an application seeking condonation of delay. The learned trial Court, without properly considering the contentions of the petitioners, dismissed the said application erroneously only on the ground that the petitioners had not explained the delay on a day-to-day basis. Hence, the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is liable to be set aside.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioners refused to receive the suit summons and, as a result, the suit was proceeded with ex parte. The learned trial Court, after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence on record, decreed the suit on merits on 12.11.2018, and the said decree has become final. The petitioners subsequently filed an application seeking to set aside the ex parte decree after an inordinate delay of 2308 days, without assigning any reasons, much less valid reasons. The learned trial Court rightly dismissed the said application. He further submitted that even pursuant to the interim order granted by this Court on 19.12.2025, the petitioners have not complied with the conditional order and have not deposited one-third of the decretal amount. The petitioners are, therefore, not entitled to any relief in the present Civil Revision Petition. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Basawaraj and another v. Special Land Acquisition Officer , (2013) 14 SCC 81 and the principle laid down by this Court in Kodiganti Jagapathi Reddy v. Kodiganti Bhaskar Reddy , 2022 (6) ALD 470 (TS)
6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the respondent filed a suit for recovery of an amount based upon the promissory note said to have been executed by the petitioners, and the said suit was decreed on 12.11.2018. Thereafter, the respondent filed E.P. seeking execution of the decree on 26.09.2023, claiming an amount of Rs.22,23,990/-. At tha
